tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN March 22, 2012 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
we need to continue to try, at least try to save taxpayer dollars when we're generating over $1 trillion of deficits every year. and i think the taxpayers expect no less. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments but i will tell the gentleman, if we're going to have negotiations and we have one number and you have another number and we agree on a number and then we pass a bill which reflects that number, put it in law, it doesn't say it's a cap, it says that will be the number. . as we pass a budget we say that will be the number. this is the law. as was observed by others on the other side of the capitol, but i observe it here as well, if we are going to have those kinds of negotiations, it's sort of like the guy comes up to you and says, look, i got something to sell you. you want to buy it? and the guy says, yeah, let's negotiate on price.
you come to a price of $100, and then you come to settle and the guy says, well, that was my top number. i'm going to give you $92 for that item. you don't have a mooting of the minds -- meeting of the minds as the contract requires. very frankly, nobody on our side and frankly i don't think anybody on your side that negotiated the deal, i don't mean that didn't vote for it, and as a matter of fact i know for a fact the speakerer, and i believe yourself, were quoted that was the number, we ought to stick with it. clearly mr. rogers believes that was the number that was agreed to. we are not going to be able to agree on things if all of a sudden it comes -- that was a notional thing we did. not an agreement. a lot of our people voted on that to make sure, a, we didn't go into default as a country, and b, that was not the number we wanted. it clearly was not the number your side wanted, but it was a
number we agreed upon. it seems to me that if we are going to try to keep faith with one another and with the law that we passed, that we should stick with what we agreed to. i understand that we want to bring the budget deficit down. as a matter of fact on this side of the aisle i have made those comments and i have been criticized by some on my side as you well know. yes, we do need to get a handle on the budget. we are going to have a real debate on the deficit and debt. and i have been working very hard on that. we are going to have a debate on whether or not your budget does that. we have had disagreements all the years i have been here on that, and performance has not reflected from my standpoint that the representations made have always worked out. perhaps on either side. but i regret, i regret deeply, mr. majority leader, that we have reached an agreement, based upon that agreement this house
took an action t took a bipartisan action, and it passed a piece of legislation that was critically important to make sure that america did not go into default. and now we see seven months later, cross fingers, we really didn't mean that, it was a cap. nobody on our side, and there was no mention in the law, nor was there any mention in the negotiations, that that was a cap not a number. unless the gentleman wants to say something further, i yield back. i yield to my friend. mr. can'ter: thank you. i just say to the gentleman this is somewhat of an academic discussion given the senate is not going to pass a budget. i remind the gentleman again, it takes two houses to go and reconcile a budget, and it takes two houses, to parties, to go forward. we look forward to working with the gentleman. i told him it is our belief that we need to respond to the urgency of the fiscal crisis and do everything we can to bring
down the level of spending in this town and look forward to working with the gentleman towards that end. i yield back. mr. hoyer: i look forward to next week debating how we bring that deficit down. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at noon on monday next for morning hour debate and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. at this time the chair is prepared to entertain one-minute requests. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? without objection. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, i support h.r. 5, the legislation to repeal the independent
payment advisory bort or ipab. as we heard this un-elected board of 15 was created under the administration's health overhaul to take critical decisions on medicare spending and hide them under a bureaucratic veil. as a result it has the power to step between seniors and their doctors with no accountability. even medicare's chief actuary indicated that the payment reductions required ipab are unrealistic and could drive doctors out of medicare an limit seniors' access to care. that's hardly an answer to rising costs. today's legislation repeals ipab and reduces costs through bipartisan medical liability reform. this commonsense reform curbs junk lawsuits and stops forcing doctors to practice costly defensive medicine. this important bill eliminates ipab and protects health care
for american seniors. i'm really glad it's passed this house and i hope the senate will take it up. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> thank you, mr. speaker. one minute. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlewoman from seek unanimous consent to speak for one minute? without objection. ms. wilson: thank you. thank you for your time. mr. speaker, yesterday i promised that every day i would come to the floor of this house and announce to america just how long justice for trayvon martin has been delayed. as of today trayvon martin was murdered 26 days ago and still there has been no arrest. there has been no arrest and everyone is suffering. his parents are suffering, his classmates are suffering, his
whole miami community is suffering. a psychologist once described to me what it feels like to lose a child. she said, it is as if someone cut your chest open, ripped out your heart, throws it on the ground, stomps on it, picks it up, place it is back in your chest, and then sew you back up. she said the parents carry that pain inside their hearts forever. so today this is for trayvon's parents as they fight for justice as i stand with them. we demand justice for trayvon. we demand justice for all murdered children. stay strong, stay strong. i'll be with you at the rally this evening just as soon as votes here are done. keep one hand in god's hand and stay strong, my friends. stay strong. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to direct their remarks to the chair. for what purpose does the
gentlelady from virginia -- north carolina, i apologize. ms. foxx: to speak unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in remembrance of a friend, former colleague, and public servant, north carolina state senator dr. jim forester. he was a lifelong public servant, a brigadier general with the u.s. air force and north carolina air national guard. he served as a flight surgeon during the vietnam war. he was a smalltown doctor and community leader. he and his wife of 51 shared the values that made our country great, were committed to the community, and worked tirelessly for the betterment of their city and state. together they sold bibles to pay for his education at wake forest medical school. he made time from his successful practice and family to serve on the gaston county board of commissioners in 1982, before being elected to the state senate where he served 11 terms.
today we pay tribute to his life and service. my heart goes out to mary francis, his three daughters and son, and eight grandchildren. may god's peace be with them and the many people who mourn his death and celebrate his life of service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? without objection. ms. waters: i ask unanimous consent that i may have five legislative days to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. waters: i rise today in korean american day. i would like to recognize the 109th anniversary of the first korean immigrants to arrive in the united states and the achievements of the korean americans responsible for bringing both this day and the importance of the contributions of korean americans to light. dr. young. in 2003 dr. young then president of the southern california centennial committee of korean immigration to the united states
began the campaign to establish a national korean american day. in 2004, when dr. young became president of the korean american foundation. he formed the national committee of korean american day. under his leadership in 2005 the committee claimed victory when the united states senate and u.s. house of representatives passed resolutions supporting the goals and ideals of korean american day and establishing an annual celebration recognizing the many contributions of americans of core re-and-decent to the life and fabric of the united states. aside from spearheading the campaign to establish korean american day, he's accomplished a great deal in his lifetime. he's the recipient of the presidential award for the republic of korea. the award for the world korean day. world korean interchange, and the award for korean american foundation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. waters: thank you very much. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for
what purpose does does the gentlelady from florida rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: i thank the speaker. as a popular tourist destination, south florida is known for its nightlife and sandy beaches, but unfortunately this is also -- this has also made our area a destination for human trafficking. thankfully kristi house has been a beacon of hope for our community by providing abused children the care they so desperately need. recently kristi house saw the need to try to identify and intercept traffickers and their victims as they use our air and seaport. as a result, kristi house has teamed up with miami international airport and the port of miami in an unprecedented partnership. m.i.a. and port of miami employees will undergo special training that will allow them to identify child victims of human trafficking and hold their traffickers accountable. approximately 750 personnel at
m.i.a. will be trained, as well as 1,500 trained by the port authority. this unique collaboration is positioned to become a national model that will be invaluable in the fight against human trafficking. i again congratulate kristi house on this tremendous achievement. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i am before the house with a very heavy heart. i am very much concerned about the circumstance in florida involving trayvon martin. we live in a world, mr. speaker, where it's not enough for things to be right, they must also look right. and it just doesn't look right for a 17-year-old child to lose
his life under the circumstances that have been announced. and i would like to thank all of the many colleagues here for the bipartisan support that has been shown in calling for the justice department to investigate. and i also thank those who say they support what the justice department is doing in terms of an investigation. it doesn't look right and i believe it is not right. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to voice my support for the medicare decision accountability act that passed this body today. the measure will repeal the controversial independent payment advisory board, or ipab, that will limit seniors' access to medicare. in my district, senior citizens rely on medicare to see their doctor and get their prescriptions filled, without the coverage they would be in a
world of hurt. ipab has the real threat of limiting seniors' access to treatment. i won't stand idly by while the board of 1r5 un-elected and unaccountable bureaucrats tries to deny medicare services to my constituents. members of ipab were not subject to any real checks and balances, a huge amount of power is being given to this medicare cutting board that will be tasked with deciding who can and can't receive health care benefits. mr. crawford: i'm committed to strengthening medicare for today's seniors anti-next generation of americans for this program. the independent payment advisory board will not protect seniors, it will only deny care. mr. speaker, the medicare decision accountability act gives seniors in my arkansas district the security of knowing their medicare benefits will not be denied by faceless bureaucrats. i hope the senate will now take action and pass this important bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. kaptur: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
ms. kaptur: mr. speaker, this week the world laid to rest in the egyptian desert a holy and wise spiritual giant, the 117th hope of alexandria and patriarch of all africa of the cop particular orthodox church. he passed on march 17. his holiness presided more than 40 years over a worldwide expansion of the coptic orthodox church and during his papacy he appointed the first ever bishops to preside over nonamerican diocese. when his holiness became hope in 1971, there were only four churches in north america. today there are over 100. . not just with catholic groups, the -- meeting the roman catholic pope of roam for the first time in over 1,500 years in the year of 19 3, but he joined with protestant choices along with islamic leaders and muslim clerics. he was a man for the world. i had the honor of meeting the pope at our local christian
church when it was being constructed. he was a man of immense faith, unforgettable. i never will forget his steady, strong, peaceful countenance when i asked him what it would take to achieve unity among the faith confessions and he said it would take love. his contributions to -- yet unmet will flower in decades ahead and progress will move forward in his memory. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to call attention to one of the most important issues of our time and to remind my colleagues and my fellow americans that every life is beautiful. this weekend a film called "october baby" will be in theaters across the country to tell the beautiful heartfelt story of hanna. a young woman who learned she was adopted after a failed abortion. while this film captures her
journey to discover her hidden past and find hope for her unknown future, it takes a clear stand for life, something we often don't see at the movies. i believe protecting unborn life is a universal issue and has become one of the most unifying causes in recent decades. and i'm grateful to all those that are involved in the making of this movie, especiallying the brothers from alabama for making "october baby." mr. aderholt: that their willing tons put this important issue in the spotlight. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, mr. john roe is the chairman and c.e.o. of exxon is retiring upon closing of the company's mother -- merger with constellation energy. he was hired to help fix its troubled nuclear fleet and
prepare the company for deregulation. in both 2008 and 2009, institutional investor named john the best electric utility c.e.o. in america. in the 14 years of john's leadership, exxon has been named by forbes as one of america's best companies, a global 2000 company, the best manage utility company to fortune's list of the world's most admired companies and one of business week's top 50 companies and utility year by electric light and power. throughout john's career he has been an active leading voice in energy and environmental policy, delivering policy addresses and testifying before congress, the federal energy regulatory commission and state regulators. john and his wife are committed participants in civic and cultural activities, they are committed to a wide range of variety of civic activities with a focus on education and diversity. the roe's sub stadges commitment to the math and science academy and he is a board of trust aye chairman of the illinois institute of technology. mr. speaker, i have come to know john roe over my tenure in congress. i can say that his impact on the
energy industry will be long felt by both policymakers and exxon customers. i wish him and his family well and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> mr. speaker, i would like to address the house for one minute, seek unanimous consent. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. speaker, i rise to call attention to a very special day in our country. yesterday marked the seventh anniversary of down syndrome awareness day. there are over 400,000 people living in the united states with down syndrome. this equates to one out of every 700 new babies born in america. many of us personally -- personally know friends and loved ones with down syndrome. mr. yoder: those lead active and productive lives, attend school and work, participate in decisions that affect them and contribute to society in so many wonderful ways. that's why i'm a proud supporter of the achieving a better life experience act, the able act, and i will continue to do my part to spread the word about this and other important legislation that will help those with down syndrome have the tools to succeed. please help me celebrate the
importance of down syndrome awareness day and let's join together to champion every individual in this country, especially those with down syndrome. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i ask to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. we just had a vote on h.r. 5. something very important. it's one of the horrible parts of the obamacare bill that we would have a board that would dictate to people what they could or could not have in the way of treatment or care. the federal government has no business getting between people and their doctor. they have no business taking over health care because if the federal government has a right to take over people's health care, then they'll have the duty to tell people how to live, what they can eat, what they must do. but i had to vote no on this bill for this reason. in order to pay for this bill,
you understand our rules, they added provision that has the congress dictating to every state in the country what their stateer to the laws have to be -- state tort laws have to be. in texas we did tort reform and we have doctors coming back. some say, well, other states don't have it. that's fine. it's their right. their doctors can come to texas, but when congress wants to usurp state law, i have to say no. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, it's the two-year anniversary of the president's so-called affordable air act, we're reminded of the unkept promises. it almost seems like yesterday when we heard the line, quote, we have to pass the bill so we can find out what's in it, end quotes. that prediction today stands as one of the few justifications for passage of a law to still
hold much truth or credibility. then supporters said it wouldn't cost a dime yet last week the nonpartisan congressional budget office stated they now expect the law to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 years. that's nearly double the $940 billion originally claimed. supporters said it would bring down costs, yet these new mandates have helped result in premium increases of up to 9% in my home state of pennsylvania. today we remain committed to repealing, replacing this costly and dangerous law piece by piece if necessary. we take a great step today by repealing a provision that would otherwise see the responsibility of -- cede the responsibility of congress to an unelected and unaccountable medicare rationing board. this measure is yet another facet of that commitment. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy
of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from indiana, mr. burton, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. burton: thank you, mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: mr. speaker, last week president obama was in an oil field in new mexico and the president said that under my administration america is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years . he said that's a fact. that is a fact. he went on to say, you have my word that we will keep drilling everywhere we can and we'll do it while protecting the health and safety of the american people. and he said, a recent independent analysis showed that over the last 36 years, there has been no connection between the amount of oil that we drill in this country and the price of gasoline. there's no connection, he went
on to say, and then the president added, even if we drilled every square inch of this country, we'd still only have 2%, 3%, or 4% of the world's known oil reserves. that's just not true. it's just simply not true. today on television the former president of shell oil said, and he ought to know, he was in the oil business, he says that there is a trillion, a trillion, get that, not a billion, but a trillion-plus barrels of oil in america, more oil than there is in saudi arabia, and it's not counted by the president and he's misleading the american people. the rb he said that is because -- the reason he said that is because when the president talked about the increase in oil production, he was talking about the increase in oil production on private land, outside the federal government's grip. when you talk about the federal
lands, where we know there's tons of oil, oil production fell by 11% last year. it went down. so we're not drilling for that oil. we're not drilling off the continental shelf. we're not drilling in the gulf of mexico. we're not drilling in alaska and the anwr. we're not using coal oil shale for oil. and so we could have another trillion barrels of oil, much more than we'll ever need, more than in saudi arabia, if we just did what the president says that we're already doing. but we're not doing it. i'm going to be on here -- down here on the floor next week and i'm going to show that the applications for permits to drill in this country have gone down. gone down by 36% since president obama took office in 2008. so he says we're drilling everywhere. the permits that have been requested by the oil companies and those who produce gasoline in this country have gone down
by 36% since the president took office. now, let me just end up by saying this, the price of gasoline from 2000 to 2009 was an average of $2.09 a gallon. the average retail price of gasoline when president obama took office was $1.85 a gallon. and the average price of gasoline today is $3.88 a gallon and everybody in america knows that. that's an increase of 86%. so when the president goes on these trips around the country to make statements to the american people about the great things they're doing for energy production in this country, he should get his facts correct. either he's misleading us intentionally or somebody's giving him the wrong information. but we have an abundance of energy in this country that's not being tapped. i have no problem with us looking at alternative energy sources. like solar, wind, geothermal,
all those things, nuclear. but those things are going to take a long time and we're still going to have to depend on oil and fossil fuels for many years to come. and the president needs to tell the truth and get with the program. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield my time back to you. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the press. mr. burton: mr. speaker. let me just say if i may that i try my best not to direct any comments to the president. when i speak on the floor i usually say, if i were talking to the president. so i always qualify. that thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for the remainder of the hour. mr. west: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to extend and
revise my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. west: mr. speaker, throughout the history of the world there has always been conflict between nations and among people. wars have been fought to conquer land, wars have been fought to spread ideas. what is constant is that with each succeeding battle, both the tools and the techniques of warfare have progressed. from the earliest days of using rocks and sticks to the advancement of bows and arrows, to flintlock and then automatic weapons, to t.n.t., atomic and nuclear bombs, man has continued to find ways, new ways, of inflicting greater destruction on each other. my father served in world war ii, my older brother served in vietnam. i myself served in operations desert shield and desert storm, iraqi freedom and enduring freedom. and my nephew continues to serve in the united states army and has already been deployed to afghanistan twice. the only thing we know for sure is that the enemies my nephew
has faced and will face in the future are altogether different from the enemy my father found in europe and my brother found in southeast asia. unlike any conflict this nation has ever undertaken from lexington and concord to gettysburg, from normally and iwo jima, to the frozen reservoir, to the persian gulf, this 21st century battlefield is not defined by columns, fronts, uniforms or borders. but rather about one ideology against another. today, mr. speaker, i want to speak about this 21st century battlefield, one that is vastly different from any we have faced before. if we are not as prepared to fight in this new virtual environment as we would be to fight in unfamiliar physical surroundings, it would be just as likely to affect our downfall
as the jungles in indochina were to the colonial french troops. mr. speaker, it is clear the united states congress, the media and america's -- and america are truly focused on the dire economic situation here at home and i share those concerns. i also recognize in the importance of not turning our backs on the principle obligation vested in us as elected leaders to protect and defend the united states of america against enemies foreign and domestic. . the wars my father and brother fought in and the cold war we were engaged in when we first put on those uniforms 30 years ago, all of them were clearly defined. we knew our enemy, we knew his tactics. we knew his weapons and the uniform that he wore. we even at times, mr. speaker, laid down our arms temporarily to observe religious holidays like christmas and tet. with the advent of the 2 isst century bat -- 21st century
battlefield that paradigm no longer exists. if we are to achieve our objectives we must be ready to adapt to changing circumstances. we cannot simply understand our enemy, we must define it. in 2012 more than 10 years after the twin towers fell in the city of which you, mr. speaker, represent, there is still a debate in this country about whom we are fighting. so today let us set aside political correctness in order to fully define the enemy we have been at war with for decades. since years before commercial airliners slammed into the pentagon, crashed in a field in pennsylvania, and took the lives of over 2,000 citizens in new york. let me be perfectly clear, the free world is not engaged in a war on terror. terrorism is a tactic, mr. speaker, and no nation or coalition of nations can go to war against a tactic. for instance, the united states was not engaged in a war against
the blitzkrieg or the kamikaze in 1941 through 1945. al qaeda and the taliban are indeed our enemy, but we are not at war with al qaeda or taliban, they are simply the regiments and battalions of the ideological army to which they belong. the united states was not at war with the 12th german panzer division or 55th japanese infantry regiment from 1941 to 1945. in fact, before the rise of al qaeda, the terrorist group that had inflicted the most damage on the united states was hezbollah. let us never forget the loss in the beirut bombing of those 240-some odd marines. today hezbollah has evolved into a highly capable military force, all be it one without state and uniform, so capable, in fact, they have armed missiles within striking distance of every city in israel. and yet several american presidential administrations
have failed to clearly identify hezbollah as an enemy. until we as a nation are able to correctly and openly identify our enemy, we will continue to put our men and women on the ground in harm's way without a clear mission for success. on this 21st century battlefield, we are not fighting against a single organization, a single leader, or single nation. we are, mr. speaker, fighting against a radical islamic fundamentalism which noes no country, recognizes no borders, and wears no uniform. it is slamism, a theocratic political totalitarian ideology, no different from nazism, fascism, and communism which threatens the free world. our enemy does not distinguish between combatants, being them lawful combatants, unlawful combatants, or even noncombatants as required by the geneva convention.
our enemy does folt distinguish we'll military and civilian targets. so, mr. speaker, how do we understand the complexities of this global conflageration in which we are engaged? how do we make the changes necessary to defeat it? with the appropriate strategy level perspective, because we will never lose at the tactical level on the ground, because the united states has the best soldiers, sailors, airmens, marines, and coast guardmen the world has ever known. but without the correct strategic and operational goals, we'll be on the proverbal hamster wheel. no matter how much effort we exert on, we will not make forward progress. so now that we have defined the enemy, we must develop strategic imperatives. mr. speaker, i believe there are three strategic impairives. to engage, to deter, and to strike. we must clearly identify specific strategic level objectives and there are four. first, mr. speaker, we must deny
the enemy sanctuary. the number one asset our military has is its strategic mobility. when that is curtailed by a focus on nation building or occupation style warfare, we eliminate our primary advantage and worse turn our military forces into targets because this enemy truly indeed has no respect for those borders and boundaries. therefore we must be willing to take the fight directly to him. second, we must interdict the enemy's flow of man, material, and roar source. we have to cut off the enemy's ability to fund, supply, and replenish his ranks. and as my colleague just spoke, our own energy independence is a vital part of that goal. third, we must, mr. speaker, win the information war. unfortunately, the enmy is -- enemy is far more adept at exploiting the power of the internet, broadcast media, and dissemination of powerful imagery. in addition, i fear there are
some in our media who now see themselves as an ideological political wing. if we cannot fully utilize information as a resource and part of our national power, we will lose this battle if not our country. the great example of this occurred during the tet offensive when the north vietnamese used information to their benefit against a superior american fighting force. despite their own troops being badly depleated in the attack, they were able to paint the outcome as a devastating loss to the united states. a form viet kong minister of justice would later right, it is a major irony of the vietnam war that our propaganda transmuted this military debacle into a brilliant victory, giving us new leverage in our diplomatic efforts, inciting the american anti-war movement, and disheartening the washington planners. today the islamic fundamentalist
enemy collectively portrays themselves as the victims of imperialism, just as the actioncies and communist powers defined the free world as aggressors in order to cover up their crimes and defines for global domination, totalitarian islam seeks to replicate the exact same strategy. the now deceased osama bin laden incited violence against americans by invoking just such language when he said, u.s. soldiers only fight for capitalists, and the merchants of arms and oil, including the gang of crime at the white house . under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interest of muslims converge with the interest of socialists in the fight against the crusaders. mr. speaker, fourth, as far as strategic objectives, we must cordon off the enemy and reduce his fear of influence -- his sphere of influence. we have to shrink the enemy's
territory and not allow any political, cultural, educational, and financial ininfiltration into the united states. what happened with major hassan, a fort hood, texas, should not have been possible in this country. we must turn a blind eye to a bold enemy who is telling us exactly what he wants to do and who he is willing to bring to battle to our door steps. furthermore, for us to classify this jihadist attack as workplace violence defies sanity. it is important that we must not hamstring our troops through the rules of engagement. let us trust our men and women who are fighting for the preservation of this great constitutional republic and that includes our domestic law enforcement. these should be our goals. deny the enemy sanctuary, cut off flow of resources, use information to our advantage, and reduce his fear of influence. we must recognize that iraq and
afghanistan are not wars but combat theories of operation. it is up to our elected leaders and strategic level military officials to identify and agree on the correct goals and objectives. beyond identifying the enemy and defining our objectives in kinetic battle, we must also understand and recognize the truly nonkinetic conflicts of the 21st century battlefield. one need only review the collapse of the soviet union to understand great nations can be toppled economically as well as militarily. in fact, one country paid particular close attention to the fall of the soviet union, and that was china. in fact, china's efforts to modernize its economy were taken explicitly from the playbook of lenin during the period of the new economic policy. lenin sought to place market mechanisms in a communist economy to preserve the rule of the party and modernize its war
industries. it also sought to deceive the west into believing communism had been weakened and was therefore a less formidable opponent. china, mr. speaker, has been mimicking this tactic for decades. it's time that we took notice. currently the united states is providing a great economic advantage to china by allowing them to have an incredible trade surplus with nearly 30% ever our debt. we must recognize china is not using that advantage to improve the standard of living of its citizens. instead, it is taking its economic edge to the 21st century battlefield. within 10 years the world's largest blue water navy will fly not under a united states but a chinese flag. and why is that important? because no matter how technology changes in the future, the earth's surface will still be covered, 70%, by water. all of the great civilizations from the foe nearbyans, romans,
portuguese, spanish, dutch, english, and japanese all understood that the power and reach of a nation is extended not through a great army but through its strong navy. in 1990 the united states possessed 570 naval war vessels. today we have 285. projected to go even lower. if we cannot protect the sea lanes of commerce, we leave ourselves vulnerable not just militarily but economically to a power in china that continues to seek world communism as its ultimate goal irrefutably so. mr. speaker, i could spend the entire special order speaking about china because i believe in this century china could become the premiere dominant nation in the world. while the relationship between china and the united states is based on mutual needs at this moment, i am concerned for the day when china realizes this relationship is more of a hindrance than a need and we
always need to prepare if that day is to come. mr. speaker, as a veteran of operation iraqi freedom who served during initial battles of that conflict, i am proud to be among the more than one million americans who served in iraq. what my fellow comrades in arms achieved in that country is nothing short of historic. together we defeated one of the most -- history's most tyrannical dictatorships and replaced it with what could be a free and democratic muslim government. american soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines beat back a radical islamic insurgency and helped create what we hope for an ally and partner in freedom. i will never forget those with whom i served and those who served after i left that battlefield. i will always remember the sacrifice borne by so many service members and their families. however, i have to question the motives of president barack obama in announcing a full
withdrawal of american forces in october of 2011. did the president press the commanders on the ground before making that decision? but what kind of message did our sudden withdrawal send to our allies such as the kurds in northern part of iraq? do they feel abandoned yet again? my fear is that political expediency drove that decision, not recommendations from the military leadership, not a strategic understanding of the 21st century battlefield. for over 10 years our nation has been on the offensive against islamic totalitarianism, radical islamic terrorism, and specific individuals who want to harm our country and kill our citizens. 10 years ago a band of thugs declared war on the united states, our fellow americans, and our way of life. the last decade in afghanistan has seen peaks and valleys, triumph and tragedy, unspeakable horror and unimaginable bravery during our long and difficult
march towards victory. while a decade may seem like a long period of time, we must remember that our enemies have been at war with our way of life for nearly a generation. from beirut to the khobar towers, from the u.s.s. cole to the first bombing of the world trade center, from the total destruction of the united states embassies in kenya and tanzania to september 11 we must never forget that we did not choose this fight, the fight chose us. while we may not have executed this combat operation perfectly, but then no war ever has been, we cannot pretend that radical islam does not exist. the killing of osama bin laden and other radical terrorist leaders are significant victories. however, the fight continues. there is evil in this world that must be confronted. lest our nation sees more of its citizens maimed and killed in acts of terror. i will continue to urge our president and his
administration, my colleagues on capitol hill, and our congressional leadership to pressure pakistan to crack down on terrorists within their borders. of particular concern is the network responsible for so much violence and blood shed. i urge our leaders on both side of the aisle to finish what was started in this part of the world. . it remains vital to our national security that we succeed in afghanistan and how do we define success? we cannot grab the enemy -- grant the enemy another opportunity to use that country as a home base for planning strikes against our nation. deny the enemy sanctuary. unconditional withdrawal from afghanistan as we have done in iraq without considering the ground situation or the advice of top military advisors would be absolutely reckless. allowing afghanistan to revert to its previous condition under taliban control overturns the progress made so dealer by our
forces and creates new threats to all americans and this world. let me be clear. if we enter -- exit without delivering a crurk blow to the taliban and other -- crushing blow to the tal ban and -- taliban and other extremists, they will bring the fight to us. while i believe the men and women serving in afghanistan are serving bravely, above and beyond, it is vital they're given all the tools necessary to succeed. we must ensure that they have the proper equipment, the proper weapons systems, a clearly defined mission. but most importantly, flexible rules of engagement that do not needlessly put their lives at risk. mr. speaker, recently prime minister netanyahu was in the united states delivering remarks that reinforces that the state of israel is a bright light in a dark ocean of tyranny and oppression. israel must be allowed to defend itself from external and internal aggression. the israeli people must be allowed to continue to build within their own borders and
jerusalem must be recognized irrefuteably as the nation's only capital. furthermore, the united states must stand by israel's side in the face of a united nation -- in the face of the united nations which clearly views the state of israel through the lens tinged with anti-- antisem ethic hate -- hatred which we just saw play out in france. anything else than full support for israel is simply unacceptable. i am concerned that israel, america's strongest and most loyal ally in the middle east, has become more isolated and vilified since barack obama became president than ever before in its existence. and i believe the united states congress has a solemn duty to ensure that the homeland of the jewish people remains as such. the united states and israel share the common bonds of freedom, liberty and democracy and the right to worship in the name of any religion as you see
fit. we share a common enemy, though, in radical islam and we have both seen our citizens murdered by these terrorist thrugs. we are each other's greasest -- greatest ally for without the united states israel would not exist and without israel the united states would soon fall. today the bonds between us must be stronger than ever because those bonds are threatened as nation ever. israel, mr. speaker, is a strong country surrounded by enemies. like us, the israelis seek only to be one nation under god with liberty and justice for all and as the bible makes clear, our purpose is to proclaim liberty throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof. the bottom line is this, our judeo-christian faith heritage
calls us to duty, to stand debe side the modern day state of israel. therefore, mr. speaker, if we discuss israel we must discuss the palestine authority. it is quite simple, no entity that aligns itself with a group that calls for the complete and total destruction of another country should ever be granted statehood. i will never support funding for the palestinian authority or recognition of a palestinian state as long as they are reconcile and connected with hamas. further, i have co-sponsored house resolution 394 to support israel's right to annex judea and sumeria from the palestinian authority continues to press for unilateral recognition of palestinian statehood at the united nations. a united nation recognized palestinian state could place israelis under the sovereignty of a group that actively seeks their destruction. this is unacceptable, mr. speaker. and in the absence of a
negotiated peace agreement, israel has the right to protect its citizens living in judea and sumeria by annexing those territories. there cannot be peace without a willing peace partner. now more than ever is a time to stand with our ally israel and thanks in large part to the so-called arab spring of democratic revolutionaries, israel is beleaguered and surrounded by hostility on all sides. the israeli embassy in cairo, egypt, was almost seized and turkey, once a prominent ally, has even shown intimations, threateninging israel with war. all the while hamas terrorists in gaza fire rockets into israel cities on a pretty much daily basis. there is a realistic chance that many european countries will recognize a palestinian state. russia is already offering enthusiastic support for a declaration of statehood and last year president obama expressed his hope for such an
outcome. and the palestinians are now using that support as part of their media campaign. even the democrat party is opposed to congresswoman ileana ros-lehtinen's commonsense legislation, house resolution 2829. this bill seeks more transparency and accountability within the united nations and -- united nations, an organization that allows countries like china, cuba, saudi arabia and others to control the human rights council. the bill also requires steps to be taken to dismantle terrorist infrastructures and arrest terrorists, control palestinian security organizations and end the incitement to violence and hatred in the palestinian media, educational institutions and mosques. and most importantly it requires the united nations to recognize israel's right to exist as a jewish state. i am pleased to support this legislation and commend my florida colleague, the chairwoman of the committee on
foreign affairs, for introducing this legislation. mr. speaker, let's be clear. there is no greater threat to israel and the united states today than the development of nuclear weapons by iran. president obama has tried to take the diplomatic route when negotiating with iran, but that is an effort that has indisputeably failed. iran has twice senlt their warships through the suez canal within the last year in a blatant message to israel. and recently an iranian defense official threatened to send warships to the east coast of the united states of america. i believe iran poses a genuine threat to democracies around the world. iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad spouts hatred against freedom of speech and of religion everywhere while oppressing his own people at home. further he denies the holocaust ever happened and has stated anybody who recognizes israel will burn in the fire of in the
islamic nation's fewery. iran continues to push for nuclear weapons and has the capability to enrich uranium. it remains a state sponsor of terrorism and has aided internationally recognized terrorist organizations like hezbollah. hezbollah along with organizations like hamas and al qaeda is committed to seeing the destruction of the democratic freedoms that we treasure along with the state of israel in its entirety. as a member of the united states house of representatives, one of my objectives is to protect the safety and security of israel. a stable israel is important to a stable united states and iran is a constant threat to that stability. we must stop lying to ourselves about iran for we are barreling toward a point at which we won't be able to prevent that nation from acquiring nuclear weapons without a massive military strike. it must not come to that. iran is merely months away from
producing sufficient weapons-grade uranium for a 15-kill ton bomb, a development which will put american naval vessels in the strait -- and the strait of hormuz at risk. as you know, i spent a lot of my adult life in uniform and some of it on that field of battle in iraq. and those of us who fought in operation iraqi freedom knew that our enemies received considerable assistance from the islamic republic of iran. many of the terrorist thugs who targeted american troops in that combat operation and just as many of those who targets our troops in afghanistan today receive guidance, training, weapons, money and an untold number of explosives that have killed our terribly maimed so many of our nation's finest, our comrades. we knew it without a doubt, we knew it because the components of those bombs bore irrefutable proof of iranian manufacturing -- manufacturing. yet to this day most americans are unaware of the support the
iraqi insurgency received from the iranians. iran declared war on the united states of america nearly 33 years ago and has waged that war ever since. the iranian war against america is not limited to our troops. indeed, as we have recently learned from the attorney general and the director of the f.b.i., the iranians are prepared to kill american civilians right here in washington. if they happen to be in the same place at the same time asage intended target of assassination -- as an intended target of assassination. our deal wgs iran are not a partisan political matter. our failure to respond to their murderous attacks are a national failure. not a failure of one party or another or a set of leaders, this is a war. whether we decide to fight it or not. they are waging war against us yet our public discourse rarely if ever bothers to mention that fact. every so often someone will remind us that iran is the world's leading sponsor of
terrorism but even that does not encapsulate the truth of the matter. they are killing us every single day. if you want to see the consequences of an iranian victory, just observe what life is like for the citizens of iran. anyone who voices opposition to the government or complains about the oppressive treatment of the nation's women is arrested, tortured and often killed. independent newspapers have long since been silenced. access to the internet is blocked or filtered with the same technology used in the people's republic of china. "the washington post" editorialists writing about the iranian's feverish efforts to construct atomic weapons put it very bluntly when they wrote, by now it should be obviously that -- obvious that only regime change will stop the iranian nuclear program and only regime change will stop the iranian war against america. only regime change will bring an end to the mullah's global
dream. "the washington post" thinks that sanctions can help, provided they are serious sanctions that strike at the heart of iran's financial system. and, mr. speaker, i have no problem supporting such an effort. but i doubt that will be enough because sanctions are only effective when a regime cares for its people. iran is a theocracy, an acquisition of a nuclear weapon will enable them to achieve their goal, the restoration of the islamic caliphate. we have another even more powerful weapon to aim at the islamic dictatorship of iran, the iranian people. and it's time to use it. there can be no doubt that the people of iran are yearning for new leaders. 2 1/2 years ago millions of them took to the streets to protest against election fraud and to call for an end to the islamic dictatorship. there can be little doubt that unlike so many of the uprisings in the muslim world, the overwhelming majority of the iranians do not want radical
jihadist overlords. they want a separation of mosque and state, with the mullahs in the mosques, not running the state. of all the opposition movements in the muslim middle east, the iranian one is the closest to us. the only one that surely wants to be part of the western world. so why then, mr. speaker, has the iranian opposition movement not been explicitly endorsed by our government? why do the president and the secretary of state continue to talk about reaching an agreement with the tehran regime? why does the president not say that ahmadinejad and khomeini must go? if qaddafi had to go and mubarak had to go and why not the iranian terror masters? since the president and secretary of state are unwilling to spell it out, i will offer my assistance. ahmadinejad and khomeini have to go, along with their evil henchmen. we need clear language from our leaders that states down with
the republic of iran which represents a clear and present evil in our world. we are are we hear about a call for a free iran and we're willing to support an effort by the iranian people to liberate their country. president ronald reagan recognized the threat of inaction answered laid out a road map on how to confront evil in our world three decades ago. first, tell the truth. tell it often. and tell it everywhere. the truth is that iran is in the clutches of evil people who kill iranians and support killing of israelis and americans every day. and who will kill even more if and when they get nuclear atomic bombs and warheads. the truth is that we have tried to reach some sort of reasonable agreement with them for more than 30 years. the truth is they don't want it. they want to destroy us and that's what they mean when they chant, death to america. second, our leaders and representatives must call for the release of political
prisoners being persecuted in that country to include the iranian christian minister being threatened with execution. when our diplomats attend international conferences they should arrive with lists of victims in iran and they should read those lists. it's hard for totalitarian regimes to kill people with names than to slaughter faceless victims. third, we should broadcast the facts to the iranian people. they need to know that we stant with them. they need to know what's going on inside their country. this is based on our experience during the cold war when it turned out people inside the soviet union knew more about events in london and paris and washington than inside their own borders. that's why radio for europe and radio liberty were such potent instruments of peace, broadcasts are often jammed by the iranian regime. we must defeat their censorship. . we have to track down the killers much americans and bring them to justice. the world must know anyone who
takes an american life will be targeted and taken out in any country on the planet. those who kill our citizens will not find safe hache in iran. -- haven in iran. mr. speaker, the majority of the american media did not feel it was important to report that iranian president ahmadinejad visited cuba, venezuela, ecuador, and nicaragua this past january. president ahmadinejad threatened almost 200 years of precedent established by the marlo doctrine when he declared from now on latin america will not longer be in the backyard of the united states. president ahmadinejad is assisting hugo chavez with missile sites and is joking with that south american dictator about pointing a warhead at the united states. and, mr. speaker, already hezbollah camps in south america. chavez himself has offered to send troops to fight with the taliban and has reportedly funded al qaeda. president ahmadinejad has
recruited the mexican drug cartels for an attempted assassination of a saudi ambassador in the united states. mr. speaker, president ahmadinejad's sphere of influence is not limited to the middle east. he is entering our hemisphere and showing the influence that he has in this region. and that goes back to our fourth strategic objective. president obama seems to be uninterested in the principles of the moreau congress trin. he has laughed it up with hugo chavez. mr. speaker, the syrian government, meanwhile, is continuing its vicious crackdown on innocent civilians seeking only freedom and democracy. according to available figures, almost 10,000 syrians have lost their lives and thousands more have been injured. many more have been forced to flee flea. the international atomic energy agency also recently concluded that the secret syrian facility destroyed by israel in
september, 2007, was very likely a nuclear reactor based on north korean model capable of producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. the syrian government has become a conduit in iran's arming of hezbollah shiite forces in lebanon and hamas in gaza. they have provide add safe docking station for iranian warships and they possess an arsenal of chemical weapons and missiles that i fear could end up in the hands of terrorists which they are associated. the threat posed by the assad regime to the united states to our allies and to the syrian people is stark and growing. the time to increase pressure on that regime is now. that is why i join other members of congress in sending a letter to president obama requesting that he implement additional sanctions on syria. the people of that country deserve a government that represents their aspirations and respects their basic human rights. it is clear that assad is not
willing to implement genuine reforms and he lacks the legitimacy to lead the syrian people. the united states and all responsible nations must hold the regime accountable and the brutality must end. additional sanctions would show the syrian people that we stand with them in their struggle for democratic freedoms while also making it clear to the syrian regime that it will pay an increasingly high cost for its gross violations of human rights and dignity. which is why, mr. speaker, unesco should expel syria and strongly condemn them and not repeatedly attack israel. but, however, we must realize that there is an interesting turn in syria with the iranian and russian presence evolving. mr. speaker, it was not too long ago the american people watched a transition in egypt with this administration claiming we were witnessing a new dawn of democracy. today instead we are witnessing the nightmare of one of the greatest threats to the
stability in the middle east. a new egyptian government under the muslim brotherhood. the egyptian parliamentary is now controlled by a majority of radical islamists and the muslim brotherhood is turning egypt into a radical islamic state. the muslim brotherhood also maintains active ties to hamas, a terrorist organization that openly calls for the destruction of israel. of course, america should stand with the egyptian people, however, if the radical elements of the muslim brotherhood are left inchecked in that country, the security of the citizens of israel, egypt, and the united states all will be in jeopardy. on july 19 of 2011 i wrote a letter to the house committee on armed services chairman, buck mckeon, on the troubling revelation of a possible u.s. military sale to the government of egypt. it stated in my letter, it has come to my attention that the defense security cooperative agency notified congress on the first of july 2011 of a possible
military sale to the government of egypt for 125 m-1 a-1 abram kits for production and associated weapons and kits and parts, training, and logistical support. america must continue to stand with the egyptian people and encourage them to build their own democracy with new political parties and freedoms. however we must exercise caution with regard to military sales and support to the egyptian government until the government is formed absent of the radical elements of the muslim brotherhood that would maintain an active peace with israel. speaking of the muslim brotherhood, mr. speaker, i would like to quote to you directly from a former supreme guide of the international muslim brotherhood. in december of 2005, muhammad said, the brotherhood is a global movement whose members cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the same religious world view. the spread of islam until it
rules the world. three years ago a court found a muslim charity right here in the united states guilty of funneling millions of dollars to the terrorist group, hamas. that was the holy land foundation trial. the council of islamic relations was named as an unindicted co-conspirator. that case included testimony that hamas' parent organization, the muslim brotherhood, planned to establish a network of organizations to spread the militant islamist message right here in the united states. and in its own explanatory memorandum for north america, the muslim brotherhood stated that its strategic goal is to establish an islamic center in every center in order to supply our battalions. though it's very front organizations in the united states, the muslim brotherhood is succeeding in cultural whitewashing to eliminate all references of islamist terrorism
in our public discourse. after the 9/11 commission identified islamic terrorism as a threat in this country, the muslim public affairs council recommended the united states government find other terminology. as a result, the f.b.i. counterterrorism lexicon and the 2009 national intelligence strategy included not a single reference to islam, muslim, the muslim brotherhood, hamas, or hezbollah. furthermore, after the attack at fort hood, the department of defense report used the terms violence extremism and islam only once, in a footnote. and again that incident was officially classified as workplace violence. mr. speaker, we must also be concerned about north korea. i was stationed in north korea in 1995 along the demilitarized zone.
i stood on the 38th parallel and looked through the barbed wire and land mines and there, mr. speaker, you can see a repressed nation. i saw for myself what a ticking time bomb that country can be. sooner or later north korea will either implode or it will explode. the situation in north korea most closely resembles a street gang where the leader of the gang is killed and a young guy must step up. in that instance it is critical for the newly appointed top dog to establish his credibility by proving himself. and today north korea is ruled by 28-year-old appointed four star general. now, mr. speaker, it took me 22 years to become a lieutenant colonel. you can begin to understand how therefore dangerous a situation is brewing just west of the sea of japan. the tactics do not change. the game is getting tired. any time north korea finds
itself in need of money, it saber rattles with the threat of a secret nuclear arms program. it has fired artillery on to south korean islands and sunk five south korean naval vessels. again and again the international community responds with misguided attempts to buy the country off. threaten to go nuclear and get funding in exchange? i call that international extortion. the d.p.r.k. newspaper, and other mouthpieces for the workers party of korea sense this party weakness and referred to the disbursement of food and aid as tribute. if there is one thing we have learned is that the north koreans cannot be trusted to voluntarily disarm. they are playing our country and the entire western world for fools. sooner or later we'll need to step up and stand up to the simmering menace just a few hundred miles from japan. mr. speaker, in conclusion if we
miss this opportunity to recognize the 21st century battlefield and understand we did not talk about africa, we did not talk about somalia, we did not talk about our own border security, i thank my colleague from indiana for speaking about energy independence, but if we miss this opportunity for understanding what this battlefield truly is, to understand the threats and lay out strategic vision for victory, we will lose the opportunity to ensure our children and grandchildren of america will have a secure future. as a country we must roll up our sleeves and devise a road map for security. we must be mindful of the wise words penned by su in the book "art of war" more than 25 centuries ago. to know your enemy and know yourself and to know the environment and countless battles, you will always be victorious. if we do not understand the simple maxim, we face dark days ahead indeed. and that shadow could not only
fall on this country, but on an entire world. because no matter what our detractors might think, we are that beacon. we are that lighthouse. we are as president ronald reagan said, the shiny city that sits upon the hill. for the sake of our nation and all nations who seek freedom for its citizens, we must be prepared to fight on this 21st century battlefield. and we can settle for no less than victory upon it. mr. speaker, those of us who have served in battle are the last to desire it. but as john stewart mill once wrote, war is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. the dekay and greatest stay of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. policymakers and those of us here in washington, d.c., should heed the wise words of george santeana, he does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it. i will always stand by the men and women of the armed forces and i am proud to represent them
as a combat veteran in the united states congress. i will always continue to protect our nation as i once did on the battlefield and as i am now honored to do in this the people's house. steadfast and loyal, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 886, an act to require the secretary of the treasury to mint coins in commemoration of the 225th anniversary of the establishment of the nation's first federal law enforcement agency, the united states marshal service. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal request.
the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. jackson of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. the chair announces the speaker's appointment pursuant to section 201-b of the international religious freedom act of 1998, 22 u.s.c. 6431 as amended in the order of the house of january 5, 2011, of the following member on the part of the house to the commission on international religious freedom for a term effective march 23, 2012 and ending may 14, 2014. the clerk: mr. robert p. george of princeton, new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60
minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. speaker. i will claim the time of the next several minutes. and want to talk to the issues before us today, namely the budget. the budget is an issue today, mr. speaker, as you may know, the house majority has issued their -- has come out with their budget, and of course the progressive caucus has come out with its budget. and that's what i want to talk about tonight. the congress, mr. speaker, is made up of a lot of diverse interests. we have people who span the spectrum of political thought. on the far right, those folks are our present here and they allow themselves to be heard. . we have other folks who have different points of view and believe that the best of america is the idea of liberty and justice for all. that's the progressive caucus.
the idea that all americans, no matter what their color is, no matter what their religion here, no matter if they're male or female, no matter who they are, has a right to live in a safe, free country with an opportunity to make a good piece of living with a retirement and with good services like public schools, like police, fire, like all these things, and we should live in a nation where we can really promote the common welfare. and what that means is that the public sector, the private sector, together with a mixed economy, need to work together to elevate the best interest of all the american people. to that end, the progressive message, which i want to share tonight, is going to be about this budget, this budget for all. the progressive caucus budget is called the budget for all and that's the progressive caucus message. tune in at
cpc.grijalva.house.gov to learn more about it, mr. speaker. now, this is the hash tag for budget four all. it's got the hash tag budget4all. we want people to check it out, read it. it's very different from the ryan budget. it's very different because we have a different vision for our country. it's very different because the progressive caucus believes that responsibility and the benefits of being an american should be shared. whereas i think it's fair to say that the ryan budget believes if you give rich people a lot of money, maybe they'll start some businesses and maybe they'll hire somebody and maybe people who are working class and middle class might benefit. it's called trickled down economics, and i'll talk about that in a minute. this is a very sharp contrast to the progressive caucus budget which is a budget for all. budget for all. let me tell you about it, mr.
speaker, because i think you'll like it. the budget for all makes the american dream a reality, again, by putting americans back to work, the budget for all enhances our economic competitiveness, by rebuilding the middle class and investing in innovation and education. the progressive caucus budget, budget for all, protects the basic social safety net which is medicare, medicaid and social security. these it's very important to protect these programs, mr. speaker, because these programs help those people who basically made america for those living now. let america never be a nation where our senior citizens who literally forged the way for younger people like myself and those younger would have to eat out a -- eat dog food, have to choose between their medication and their meal, won't have enough to make their basic ends meet. we need to support medicare,
medicaid and social security. that's what the budget for all does. the ryan budget, which is really the republican budget, does something very, very different and we are going to talk about that in a minute. now, it's important, mr. speaker, to bear in mind that when you talk about the budget of a nation, what you're really talking about is the priorities of that nation, the values of that nation. if you show me a family budget and that family has a lot of money that they spend on potato chips, soda and pop and none on the gym, i'll tell you that they -- what they value. if you show me a family that puts money into their kids' education and spends on making sure that they live in a neighborhood that's safe and i'll show you what their values are. if you show me a family that buys nutritious food, i'll show you what their values are. our budget reflects on what we believe and our budget as a
nation is a reflection of what we are. our budget, here's what it reflects. first, it puts americans back to work. that's the number one thing the budget for all of the progressive caucus does. it attacks the high unemployment levels with more than $2.4 trillion over 10 years in job-creating investment. this plan utilizes every tool at the government's disposal to get the economy working again including -- and, mr. speaker, this is important -- direct higher programs that create a school improvement core. also, a park improvement core. a student job corps and others. so right now when we have literally 14 million people out of work looking for jobs, why don't we send them to our schools and make these schools top-quality institutions and
make the facility well-painted, well-cared for, well-taken care for so when the water breaks the principal doesn't have to say, oh, my goodness, do i take it out of the maintenance budget to fix the boiler? what do i do? we have aging infrastructure in our country and our schools are part of that and they are crumbling and we have to do something about it. under the progressive caucus budget for all we spend money to hire people to help rejuvenate and improve our schools. school improvement corps. and also in many districts where state and local governments have been cutting back, you have teachers who are trying to service 50 kids, 40 kids. this program can help teach kids and give the teachers some real help in the classroom so that they will not be overburdened. we also invest in the park improvement corps. now, in my great city of minneapolis, and i'm going back there today.
you can walk around our beautiful lakes. and one of the lakes we have is called cedar lake and everybody loves cedar lake and you can walk through the paths there. and recently, mr. speaker, i stopped at a picnic table along the path of cedar lake and stamped on this, mr. speaker -- you'd be surprised to see it said, "w.p.a., 1934." now, that's a work progress authority. it put people back to work at a time when americans were in high numbers out of work. i think that if that generation at that time could respond to the needs of americans who weren't working back then in the depression, given the high rate of unemployment our generation should not do less, a park improvement corps to help take care of the paths, take care of the parks, make sure that these great national monuments, dedicated to the
enjoyment of all americans are cared for and we hire people in the process. this is a good idea. but also student corps. mr. speaker, one of the things that unemployment numbers reflect is that a lot of young people are out of work. a lot of people who just got out of college still looking for their first job. people wanted to jump right into the work force are having a very tough time. so the student job corps would be a program to put students to work. you know, mr. speaker, there's lots of work to be done around america. we have -- according to the american society of civil engineers, there's $2 trillion worth of maintenance that needs to be done all across america. i'm talking about the roads, the bridges, the transit, all kinds of stuff. there's young people who need intervention. there's tutoring that needs to happen. there are all kinds that needs to happen. between the school improvement corps, the park improvement corps and the student job
corps, we will be able to literally hire millions of people. it will be great. it will spur or economy. it will increase aggregate demand and it will give a lifetime to people who have been out of work for a long, long time. and people would really rather work, mr. speaker. you know that, you know, of course i'm a very firm believer in our social safety net in our elderly. i believe in it. i think that medicaid is very important. i believe that food stamps is a critical program. i believe in all these programs. but i do know -- and everyone knows that folks would rather work. and so let's set up a works program so that people can do their job and jobs that need doing. also, mr. speaker, i talked some of our direct hire program. but what about the other aspect of the budget for all which focuses on the targeted tax incentives that spur clean energy, manufacturing and cutting edge technological investment in the private
sector? now, republicans, if the economy is doing great they want a tax great. if the economy is doing bad they say tax cut. if the economy is kind of up and down they say tax cut. these guys think that we should always tax -- cut taxes all the time except when working people want a tax cut, they really fought us tooth and nail over the payroll tax cut. but if some really rich people want a tax cut they are all for that. it's not that they are bad people. it's that they mistakenly assume the trickle down economic works. if they give them money they'll hire something. the tax cuts we are talking about is targeted so we can spur clean energy, manufacturing, technological investment in the private sector and, of course, president obama has presided america with over 23 straight months of private sector job growth.
long way to go but definitely the right direction. the third aspect that we need to spend on for jobs is the -- is in a surface transportation bill. we propose a $556 billion surface transportation bill over the course of a -- spread out over a number of years, but when we think of the potholes, the bridges that are old. i was at a bridge in st. louis park in my district and this was a 73-year-old bridge. you know, this bridge needed some care and needed to be refurbished to make sure it stays safe. you know, and there are bridges like that all over my district, all over america. and so this $556 billion surface transportation bill and the approximately $1.7 trillion in widespread domestic investment, we -- the budget for all, mr. speaker, is all about putting americans back to
work first. but here's something about the budget for all that people need to know. our budget is more fiscally responsible than the republican budget. now, if you ask republicans they think, oh, well, liberals, you know, they may not be bad people but they're not realistic. they just want to give all the money away. they don't want to hold people responsible. you know what, our budget is more fiscally disciplined than the republican ryan budget. unlike the republican budget, the budget for all substantially reduces the deficit and does so in a way that does not devastate or set back our recovery. we achieve these notable benchmarks by focusing on the true drivers of our deficit. unsustainable tax policies, overseas wars and policies that help the recent recession rather than putting america's middle class' social safety net
on the chopping block. our budget creates a fairer america. we end tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans on schedule at the year's end which is -- they're set to expire and we let them expire for the top 2%. extends tax relief for the middle-class households and the vast majority of americans. creates new tax brackets for millionaires and billionaires in line with the buffett rule. eliminates the tax codes preferential treatment of capital gains and dividends. abolishes corporate welfare for oil, gas and coal companies. it eliminates loopholes that allows businesses to dodge true tax liability. it creates a publicly funded federal election system that gets corporate money out of politics for good. now, it has always bothered me, mr. speaker, that only 2/3 of america -- that 2/3 of america's corporations don't pay any taxes because there is a 1/3 that do.
because we have this system of loopholes everywhere, some corporations have to pay for freight and others don't have to. g.e., for example, was said to have paid no or very low taxes. but there's a lot of big ones that didn't pay. bank of america didn't pay. there is a lot of them didn't pay. i don't think boeing paid. i am saying that the corporations that do pay we have to make sure that everybody ponies up something. and if more people pay, the burden on the ones that do pay will be lower. the budget for all recognizes this important truth unlike the ryan budget, which protects coal, oil and those dirty polluting industries -- oil, gas and coal companies. now, other aspect of the budget driver, another big budget driver are these overseas wars.
let's face it, in iraq they told us that we were supposed to be getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. there weren't any. they told us that saddam hussein was connected to al qaeda. he wasn't. and they say that -- they say that we had to go there, you know, make sure there will be peace. well, we're leaving now and the iraqis, well, it's their country and they're managing the best they can. still it's not that peaceful, but the fact is 10 years couldn't solve their problem. it was right to get out of iraq, but it's also right to get out of afghanistan. . we need to responsibly and expeditiously end our military presence in iraq and afghanistan leaving america more secure at home and abroad. our budget adapts our military to a 21st century threat. because we definitely believe that america should be strong, but we should be adapting
ourselves to a reality that we are in. one of the attributes of our bill, one of the very important components, is a piece of legislation called the sane act. this excellent piece of legislation reduces our nuclear weapons arsenal because this is all cold war stuff designed to fight the soviet union and there is no more soviet union. so what are we doing with these 20th century weapons systems in the 21st century? we need to bring some sanity to that. and we reduce the budget so it reflects the modern reality. the budget for all protects american families by providing a make work pay tax credit for families struggling with high gas and food costs. this make work pay tax credit for families that are struggling with high gas and food costs is the kind of thing that incentivizes work, which is what we want to do.
we extend the earned income tax credit and child dependent care credit. now, i have just been joined, mr. speaker, i'm very happy to say, by a good friend of mine from the great state of texas, sheila jackson lee, whenever she's ready to stand, she can stand up and hold forth but i'm looking forward to sharing some of my time with her because her insights are always very important. congresswoman lee should just take her time until she's ready, but when she is stand on up and i'll recognize her immediately, mr. speaker. moving forward on this issue of protecting american families, the budget for all invests in programs to stave off further foreclosures to keep americans in their homes. this is very important. a lot of the economists who look at the problems with our economy have concluded that until we get our hands around this foreclosure crisis, we are going to continue, mr. speaker, to have very slow growth.
well, the budget for all addresses this problem. we go deal with investing in programs to stave off further foreclosures. we also invest in children's education by increasing in education training and social services. so the budget for all is a good budget. it's a budget that makes sense. it's a budget for america. it's a budget designed to help the middle class and put americans to work. it's a budget that really reflects what americans want, which is to get out of afghanistan and iraq and we are already out of iraq, but we are still kind of there, but we don't have a military presence there. we got contractors there. and this is a good budget that i hope people will take a very strong look at. it is more fiscally responsible than the ryan budget. we spend more up front to get the economy moving but we save money on the back end and we end up getting to budget -- primary surplus in the year 2016.
and this is an important thing we need to do. let me just now if the good lady is ready, just pass the microphone and yield to congresswoman jackson lee who has distinguished herself in many areas. not the least of which is fighting for a fair budget for our nation. i yield now to congresswoman jackson lee from texas. ms. jackson lee: i thank the co-chair of the progressive caucus for once again reminding america of america's greatness. that's why over 90-plus members joined together to be members of the progressive caucus. we have a sense of optimism, mr. ellison, that reflects our commitment to investing in human capital. earlier today i had the opportunity of listening to a discourse about the
transportation bill. and i will point to what we have done with infrastructure, and there was the representation of the majority leader that we are living in hard times. we don't have money. that we can't be looking, for example, at the senate bill, and we can't move forward. and i just listened as our minority whip spoke about the urgency of moving forward on a infrastructure bill. but what i think is important and really the theme i wanted to focus on as i listen to you in my office, and i just left about 12 constituents who are the beneficiaries of community health clinics, one of the identify fems that -- items that we have supported as a progressive caucus for a very long time and championed along with the tricaucus to put in the affordable care act, which by the way two-year anniversary is tomorrow.
but the point is we have optimism. we have the sense that america can get it done. you just put up a very telling poster that when our republican friends begin to talk we are headed toward a pathway of devastation. no medicare, no medicaid, allowing reckless investments or speculation to occur. jobs overseas. and not focusing on our recovery. let me just take from our package -- by the way, we understand a balanced budget. we are using war savings for the people of the united states of america. our troops come home and we realize -- realign our national security focus, and i think most americans will understand that even national security experts
will tell us that it is probably a challenge to think we will have a ground war invasion like we have had years past. ever again. that we are now fighting a war on terrorism or action of terrorism, and certainly as we look to tell others to in essence become unnuclearized, we, too, must join the world's family because it's only one upsmanship. i will just say we do not disarm our nation. we believe in defending our nation. but we believe in doing it in a smart way. but what we have done is that we have these words comprehensive economic recovery, but i'd like to say this is a smiley face optimistic pathway for americans. don't you think young people who are now sophomores, juniors, and
seniors in college looking for their bright day, does anyone remember as we come upon may how exciting it was to look forward to a college graduation, a trade school graduation? you were just tickled pink. you were making sure invitations were out. you were hoping that all relatives could make sure they had no conflicts. you really wanted grandma there or aunt there or favorite brother there or mom and dad there or family there. this was an exciting time. the progressive caucus budget speaks to that excitement and optimism and hopefulness. and infrastructure bank that allows the private sector to come together and effectively bring about infrastructure projects in all manner of areas from the hamlets that are so small to the villages to the county governments to the city governments and state governments. surface transportation. i interviewsed the surface
transportation bill that has been slowed. another bill that would generate income and transportation security and recognize that he we must secure our surface transportation. in this bill we propose a six year, $556 billion re-authorization bill that over 10 years would lead to $213 billion increase in transportation funding, but what it would do also is to create the many jobs to provide for small contractors, minority-owned contractors, women-owned contractors, it would create work. it's an optimistic view. making work pay tax credit for 2013 and 2015, which is let folks who are working, let those get a benefit that makes sense. and more than $2 trillion in domestic investment packaging. let me mention the idea of when you work with emergency jobs to restore the american dream, getting people out where improvement is needed, student
improvement, park improvement, student jobs, neighborhood heroes, health communities. fairly qualified clinics, childcare core. getting folks to work in my town in the southwest. as you well know we had a great drought in the last year. volunteers are trying to plant trees. i tell you we could stand for a heroes corps. we could stand for community corps to get out there to help us recede america, if you will. we know that, we know the job corps. this is a concept that gets folk out working. i also want to congratulate the university of houston downtown that is heavily minority that just won the distinguished honor roll recognition for the largest amount of community service done by a campus across the nation cited by the department of education. that means people are ready to put that to work. tax credits for investment in advanced energy. i've got a company right in my
community that's been awarded for its new innovative work on energy. manufacturing, capital access for entrepreneurs and small businesses. let me just say this. i am excited about the three million apple 3's that were sold because i think that is optimistic and it applauds the genius of america and it goes against the sad deflated concept -- let me be very clear. i am not ignoring the unemployed americans. i want to be very clear on that. i don't think the progressive caucus for a moment we did a job tour, we are going back out again. we have no reason to dismiss the person who is now sitting unemployed. but what i want to say is there's some optimism, we have to get all those folk to be part of this new surge of optimism which this progressive caucus budget if passed would generate. but i want to just say to my good friends at apple, bring the jobs home.
you are manufacturing apple 3 in china. and i certainly believe in international framework. i know that everything can't be made in america, made at home. but i do know that aspects of the talent that you are using in china can be found here in the united states. and the cost of shipment i can tell you you can save some dollars. let's put our thinking caps on to companies like apple and find a way that you can balance, balance those resources. i'm just going to cite general electric. i know that we have put a real heavy heat on general electric. i am told by their employees. i am told by employees they are bringing jobs home. i met with some employees in my district who indicated that they have been bringing them on home. i looked at them. they were real. they were alive. so they have jobs and they said they work for general electric. let's have a number of companies looking that way. let me quickly, mr. chairman,
just mention, because this is all exciting. and i think people need to hear about excitement and opportunity. we already talked about the manufacturing community's tax credit. tax credit for the production of advanced technology vehicle. again everybody saying we are slowing the hybrid, slowing the electric car. but all of that can create opportunity. tax credit for alternative food commercial vehicles which is very possible. double the amount of expense start-up expenditures so that means that if you got a start-up we are going to double what you can expense. i think that makes a lot of sense. young people are the ones always starting start-ups. we need to encourage that. enhance and make permanent the research tax credit. that is right in the line of the texas medical center. many of our medical research hospitals, the 18th
congressional district, our neighbor, is working on new technology. this fits an optimistic view on how we can cure the worst of the worst. let me also say that i want to make mention that we are dealing with tax brackets. and we are looking, i think, at a sensible policy dealing with capital gains and state polcy. what i will say to those listening to us, get on our website, give us input. we are interested in what you have to say. and as well let me put in just a pitch that no one likes this season when april 15 comes around. but we have tried to make our tax reform pal litible and -- palatable. and as far as i can see we have left'loan the charitable tax exemption. and i tell you there are those
who very concerned that we leave little room for those who have that on the table, everything on the table, that they would attack the charitable tax exemption and not go to some of the ones that the progressive caucus have focused on because this nonprofit, this foundation said they would be stopped in their tracks. and i had one foundation, one nonprofit talk to me today and say how challenging it is to get funding for the disadvantaged and programs that deal with inner city, so i want you to know that the progressive caucus recognizes the value of the charitable tax deduction and we are not -- you don't find that on our table. . i wanted to mention for a moment trayvon martin, if he'd allow me to do so. mr. ellison: by all means. ms. jackson lee: he's certainly
a law who practiced law, but i met mr. ellison's wonderful family, young man. that's what happens, people don't realize we have families on both sides of the aisle. good republican friends. we've been with our families, and so whatever you see us saying here on the floor of the house we are particularly sensitive and warm toward members' families because we are in essence, despite our policy debates, we are a family here. and so i simply wanted to indicate first to give good wishes to congresswoman brown, who is now with her constituents in a major protest. congresswoman corrine brown in florida on this topic -- excuse me -- on this sad and tragic incident. and i wanted to say that we will gather on tuesday to
present an opportunity for the case to be heard on this issue and the federal federal government's responsibility or authority. but i just wanted to remind one of the things in this budget we are keenly sensitive to the department of justice. the department of justice is the armor in many instances that will come in and help a community when they cannot get help locally. mr. martin was killed on february 26. he was buried on march 1. today is march 22. it was only when his parents came out or used their grief that they are still grieving to start asking why law-abiding
citizens who were waiting for the city attorney and waiting on the chief of police, waiting on the governor of the state of florida to say something, nothing was said. so as this began to -- the voices began to raise and the astonishment and outrage begin to percolate, mr. ellison, it was not isolated to florida or sanford. if you listen to the various media outlets, parents, no matter what their background, were calling and asking, what about my child? and i think it's important that we show this young man. it could be any of our family members. can we imagine our youngsters wearing the clothing of the day, hoodies, sneakers, jeans, do i need to remind you, mr.
trayvon martin was simply getting some skittles, on the phone with his girlfriend, going back to where his father was, and wanting to look for some games. in this instance it was basketball. and an individual -- i come from local government. you come from state government. we know about neighborhood watch. we champion neighborhood watch. we have this community night out, police night out, whatever it is and all of us have gone through it. we tell neighbors to watch out for each other. it's important for it to be said, this was not watching out for each other. the basic 911 tape, if you frame it, the call came in, that's the right thing to do. the description i may not adhere to some of the words in the description but so be it, you describe this individual as such. but it came back and asked the specific question, are you following him? yes. do not do that.
this youngster, football player , babysitter. likes to baby-sit. eating skittles. skittles, fun food to eat at a basketball game. was on a sidewalk, not coming out of a window, not knocking on a door, not standing in front of a door, not on a lawn. walking on a sidewalk. the first amendment and the progressive caucus has stood many times on that first amendment right. we've stood many times. walking and we are now in an abyss of darkness in terms of what next happened, but as the description is, this young boy was shot point blank in the chest. and so we have to call upon the
federal resources. we've called for a federal investigation. we've been joined by many colleagues. we have tapes of witnesses, meaning people inside their homes saying they heard shouting and crying for help. we heard people ask the question, why didn't the neighborhood watcher stand down in the car, move away? and we've also heard the author of the stand your ground bill which is by the way in 20 or so state, republican state representatives articulated in newspaper clips saying it was not an attack, pursue an attack. it was stand -- you can stand your ground upon someone coming, but it is not a pursue and attack. so i just want to indicate that it's important for members of
congress, and i believe there is a sense of outrage. we are not taking this to the level that does not respect the family that is mourning. wher' not creating hiss tearia. we are only begging for the relief of others whose names have not come up, but there are people calling in and telling us about cases from the west coast to the east coast to the north to the south. so i wanted to indicate that we will be joining as members of congress to hear the circumstances as much as we can on the theory of the federal government's responsibility or authority. i think that is the more appropriate approach to take. and i want to thank the gentleman for letting me articulate the -- i think --
just share horror of having our kids leave our home for innocence and not come back. as a mother, i believe that and as one that sees this, i believe we owe that family a response. i yield to the gentleman. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady will yield. it's funny you make the point about your family tie. when i first heard the case of trayvon, i mean, my thoughts went immediately to my own 17-year-old son. my own 17-year-old son. we live in minneapolis. he can very well be running to go get some skittles talking about softball. it's horrifying to me, deeply troubling and disturbing to think that first of all he was some sort of a problem because he was walking down the street. and then to follow him.
and then after the 911 people say, don't follow they still follow. you're right. much has been said about the florida law, the stand your ground law, but this gentleman did not stand his ground. there's no evidence to suggest that is what happened. he went after this kid. and then when you hear the tape of the boy screaming, you know, and somebody said to me earlier today, well, don't call trayvon a boy. hey, he's 17. he's a boy, and he was killed by a grown 28-year-old man. and it's deeply disturbing. people don't quite get it yet. i wish they could feel how some of us feel about this case. i mean, horrible -- i spent 16 years in the criminal justice system. i know that horrible things happen. it's heartbreaking anytime we lose anyone. but to think that law
enforcement would operate and treat this person with impunity is absolutely an abandonment of every principle of serve and protect. you know, if a cop did what this guy did, they would take his gun, they'd make him give a urine sample, they'll put him on administrative leave until this thing was sorted out. this guy walked away. and here's another thing. as a criminal defense lawyer, i find it nothing short of shocking that this man's representation that he shot in self-defense was good enough. i mean, if you got a self-defense claim, then after you're charged with murder, you can raise that and see if you convince a jury of it. we have a dead young man here
and the chief of police is like, well, these things happen. no, there needs to be accountability. and i hope that every parent -- you know what i don't want to see happen. i hope people don't think, you know, this is some -- because this kid's black. you know, this could be a kid of any color. ms. jackson lee: that's right. mr. ellison: any parent should be shocked, any 17-year-old walking the streets ought to be worried that some overzealous wannabe police officer would just shoot them down. this is a case of national outrage. you know what -- you know and i know because we both have worked in the system that if the police would have done the arrest, processed this case in the ordinary course, probably wouldn't even hit national news. but because nothing was done -- ms. jackson lee: absolutely nothing. mr. ellison: cold-blooded murder, looked like first doig -- first-degree murder, it's
horrible. i yield back to the gentlewoman. ms. jackson lee: you are speaking as a parent. you really highlighted it. in this instance, of course, we have to look and see whether there was a hate crime or civil rights vy plated. you are absolutely right, we have nothing to go on. we have a person walking who the police themselves who so many of us have worked to ensure that the guns on this street don't go after our law enforcement officer, because obviously there are many who believe the more guns the better we are. just guns, guns, guns. it has nothing to do with the second amendment. just guns, guns, guns. he has a concealed weapon. i am not here to cast any aspergses. but as the reports are coming out, he has some challenges, meaning mr. zimmerman, to his record has some challenges. that in and of itself, if the officers brought him in, there is no evidence of that. there is no evidence of that. and do what you indicated the
normal police work, albeit he has a concealed weapons permit, stand your ground. you have a dead person. no witnesses. at least the police have offered to say mrs. jones, mr. smith, mrs. gonzalez said that they were in a knockdown dragout. that does not have any glimmer of information that has come out. the young man happened to be a person of color. we have placed in a bipartisan vote both hate crimes law, 1964 civil rights act, other bills that have been voted on in a bipartisan manner simply because we don't want america to violate those very precious rights. but i want to just share with you the "washington post," because as i said to you, i've got neighborhood watch that experts say neighborhood watchers shouldn't be police.
that very -- mr. ellison: they should watch. ms. jackson lee: that is correct. what i don't understand and what we will be, if you will, per rusing is -- per reussing is where did this case go wrong and the fact that the federal government has to come in when things go wrong. someone said to me in my office that this case has rivitted. and you're right, there are cases across america. members have raised cases in conversations that we had and we need to have all that in an inventory. but if we can out of this tragedy say to those parents, trayvon counts, we care, young people count, children count, your community counts, our communities counts, i wanted to share that. i am not going to let this go.
the judiciary committee, the caucuses, the congressional black caucus, the asian caucus, the hispanic caucus, letters that have been written by members of congress, the work of congresswoman brown, the progressive caucus, i know, is a willing partner when it comes to issues of justice, but we are not going to let this rest without finding some relief and rest for this family. and i thank the chairman for his personal story. since i met the young man and we've all traveled together on family caucus events where families come together and i just conclude by simply holding up, again, this picture. and for those that don't know the terminology, let me just show he's in a football attire here.
and we don't know what college he would have gone to or what football team if that had been his choice that he would have played on. but let me just put up, if you can see it, this is an innocent face, but he's wearing or is wearing a hoody and if anyone needs to know, i have a hoody. it's my local college's par if a nalia that they give you and you wear it to a game and it has -- paraphernalia and it has a hoody and it's something that i think everybody's seen in this country and i see nothing on here that says, bad guy, criminal, shoot me. that's not what we do in america. i want to thank the gentleman for allow he mg to share and to say -- for allowing me to share and to say that we will find some resolution to this. i want to yield back to the gentleman simply by concluding
and saying do i believe in an optimistic america. revealing may pain about this young man is the pain for all whose names we have not called. but in believing in an optimistic america, i want to be a problem solver. i want to solve this problem or answer this problem with respect to trayvon martin. but i want to say that, as i perceived this product that has been produced, this budget for all, i am so grateful that over 90-plus members of the progressive cause saw the right route to take was the optimistic , upturn, positive, open opportunity budget to give to all of america. that's what we should be supporting, not the downturn, the no-way-out, but really that there is a new day for america.
i want to yield back to the gentleman and thank him for his courtesy. mr. ellison: i thank the gentlelady for joining me tonight. i would like -- we talked about the budget for all and the hash tag again is, people can check it out on twitter or anywhere else, it will be on u.s. progress, we won't even look at the budget for all, we want your ideas, but i think it's important to draw the contrast. the ryan budget recently released, the republican budget, does some critical things that americans should know about. ends medicare and devastates medicaid. rewards wall street, punishes main street. protects corporations that ship jobs overseas. threatens the recovery. it preserves tax breaks for the people who don't need them and actually cuts into the social safety net for america's everyday heroes, police, fire, job training, small business,
infrastructure, college affordability. you know, i'll say this, i think the facts show that in the course of the last couple of months, i mean, i guess 18 months, there abouts, you know, i believe that the republican majority really hasn't been working on solving problems. now, people can say whatever they want about dodd-frank or they can say whatever they want about affordable care act or the lilly ledbetter fair pay act for women or they can say anything they want about the credit cardholder bill of rights but in the last congress these were bills the democratic house majority passed, they were designed to try to solve problems for americans. now, some people say, well it should have done this more, shouldn't have done so much of that. fine, that's what we do here. we debate stuff. but i'm not aware of any single piece of legislation we've looked at since they took the majority designed to solve a problem.
it's all been cut everything, wreck everything, let's not take a surge l.a.cal look at what should be cut, just cut everything. they can can -- they have created budget crisis after fiscal crisis after debt limit crisis. i mean, this is the congress of crisis. and, you know, the gentlelady is aware and the speaker may be aware that because the ryan budget basically goes below the nondiscretionary, nonmilitary discretionary in the budget control act, which was a deal when the senate comes in with their budget and this budget that won't match, we're going to have another standoff. oh, and by the way, we're going to have a standoff in 10 days because the transportation bill is expiring. the house -- the house majority, the republican caucus, we're not agreeing with the senate to pass a two-year transportation bill, so the transportation bill
within 10 days is looking to expire. they say we'll only do a three-month bill. three months? this is putting everybody's lives in jeopardy. they just did it with the f.a.a. not more than a few months ago. this is the crisis congress where they will not make long-term decisions because they're playing politics. i believe that the republicans have put election, defeating the president as their primary goal, there are there -- therefore they're not -- of course they're not operating on the basis of trying to solve any problems. now, before any republicans get upset with me for saying these things that i honestly believe to be true, don't get mad at me, americans believe that that's what they're doing. here's the question put to americans. republicans would rather see president obama lose than see america win. half of americans believe the republicans are sabotaging the
recovery to win an election. this is a "the washington post" poll. 50% responded positively to that, 44% said no. if you got most people thinking that your main goal is to get rid of the president and not help them, that's a problem and, look, some folks might say, ah, keith, that's not true. that's just you politicians arguing again. well, mitch mcconnell said it. he said our main party is to defeat the president, make him a one-term president. so at the end of the day this budget reflects that politics-playing things that they seem to be on. they're rigging the system even more heavily in favor of the richest 1%. their budget gives generously to the rich, protects existing tax breaks for those at the top of the income scale. also, the reality is that the only way to pay for such huge tax cuts for the 1% is to make the 99% pay the tab.
their budget would weaken the middle class in america first and foremost, the plan ends medicare guarantee of decent affordable health insurance in retirement. it also slashes critical middle class investments such as education, infrastructure by 45% and 24%. cuts education by 45%, infrastructure by 24%. it includes not a single new measure to help the nearly 13 million unemployed. though we recently enjoyed several months of solid jobs growth, our current economic recovery is by no means assured and we still have a long way to go. not only does the house republican majority budget fail to propose a single new idea for spurring job growth, it would even force us to swerve into severe austerity. the ryan budget, which is the republican budget, cuts the following. it kills even more jobs by cuts to federal work force, by over
roughly 210,000 over three years, cuts food stamps and welfare, cuts retiree benefits from federal employee pensions, cuts support for farmers, cuts anti-poverty programs and uses proceeds to give rich people even more tax cuts. as i've said before, the republicans who believe, and they do -- so many of them believe in it, they believe in trickledown economics. this is the idea that rich people don't have enough money and poor people have too much. the problem is that they have never -- that belief system has never succeeded. the best -- one of the best economists since world war ii was in the 1990's. one of the best. we had the clinton era tax rates which we hope we'll return to at least for the top 2%. the top 2% were doing great
during clinton's time. and yet the republicans say that unless we give rich people more money, the economy is not going to be good. well, it's not good now and they've been in charge for a long time. so the bottom line is the ryan proposal, budget proposal is there for -- bad for america. cutting basic criteria for seniors and not investing in jobs, the budget for all, invest in america and put americans as the top priority, not just winning some election. so with that i'll yield back the balance of my time and i thank the speaker for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from louisiana, mr. fleming, for
30 minutes. mr. fleming: well, thank you, mr. speaker. indeed a pleasure to come to the floor today, speak to this chamber, to talk about a subject that i think is very important on the minds of the american people and that is the two-year anniversary of the patient protection and affordable care act, also known as ppaca and
more commornly known as -- commonly known as obamacare. i want to give you a little context, mr. speaker, of where i come from. i'm a congressman from louisiana , in the fourth district, centered in shreveport. i've been a family physician for 36 years, still see patients when i have the opportunity. i also have businesses on the side that are not related to health care and so in my world, for many years, and in raising a family and responsibilities of meeting payrolls, have included not only running a small medical practice but also a growing business, dealing with all of the regulations, the taxation and the many different issues, personnel problems, human resource problems that we must deal with. and certainly providing health care has been a great challenge over the years and there's no
question that the system is not -- has not been what it should be prior to this time and in fact one of the reasons why i ran for congress and many of my other colleagues who are physicians, we have 15 m.d.'s just in the republican section alone and i think we'll have more next year, the reason why we've become so activated, if you will, when it comes to federal policy on health care is because of all the failures that we've seen over the years and the problems with government trying to micromanage health care. so what i want to talk about today is broken promises with regard to obamacare. you may recall that candidate obama, senator obama, says, will you not have to change your health care plan if his health care plan is brought into law. for those of you he said who have insurance now, nothing will change under the obama plan. except that you will simply pay less.
another quote from him is this, this is president obama in june of 2009. and that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the american people. if you like your doctor you will be able to keep your doctor. period. if you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. period. well, what is the truth of this? by the administration's own estimates, new health care regulations will force most firms and up to 80% of small businesses to give up their current plans by 2013. grandfathered plans would then be subject to the costly new man cates -- mandates and increased premiums under the president's health care plan and i'll give you again my own business is back home, we still cover our employees and we would fall under the grandfather. but here's what we're up
against. if we change just one dotted i, one crossed t, it totally nullifies the grandfather rule that applies to our plan. so what that means is if we change anything, the cost structure, anything, then we will fall into the government mandated plan in which we have to choose among the three specified, certified government plans that would be chosen for us. now, you can say, well, we can keep exactly what we have without changing one thing of it. the problem is, what if the cost continues to go up? and it will. and we say, you know what? maybe let's raise the deductible, raise co-payments, you know, cut some coverage some place, change the way we cover pharmaceuticals, do something to lower that cost so we can afford it as a company and our patients can afford it. uh-uh. no. it then nullifies the grandfather clause and then it
activates of course obamacare and we will be required to be in it. let's go to broken promise number two. i have many broken promises but i am going to focus on six today. broken promise number two, president obama in september, 2009, says, first, i will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits. either now or in the future. i will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. well, is that true? an honest accounting of the health care plan finds it will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions in the first 10 years alone. for instance, the law doubles -- it double counts the
medicare savings. see, it's interesting the way we have something in washington and congress called the c.b.o., congressional budget office. it uses a scoring mechanism. it works out of a 10-year budget window, so whatever we do, it either costs more or costs less based on what happens in the next 10 years. and so this was a big challenge for the obama administration to get this bill passed because they saw what we see, what we saw and that it is will add billions of dollars to the budget. what did they do? they manipulated the budget window to make it look like it paid for itself. how did they do it? well, for one thing, the way the bill is set in motion and the way it's implemented is that for the first four years, you notice even though it passed in march of 2010, it hasn't been implemented. why? very good reason. because the costs don't begin
until it's implemented. however, the revenues already began the soon the bill was passed. the way it scored, we have 10 years of revenue, that's income, and six years of cost. well, mr. speaker, i could write any business profitably that way if i have 10 years of revenue and only six years of costs, and that's precisely what happened here. however, the budget -- the bill -- the law now has been rescored and in fact what was supposed to be a $900-something billion over 10 years and is now at $9.75 billion and now will be over $2 trillion. one wrote under a realistic set of assumptions the law will increase the deficit by at least $500 billion in the first 10 years and more than $1.5 trillion in the second decade.
now, mr. speaker, let's go back to where we are with government health care pre-obama health care. back in the 1990's, the last time we balanced a budget was under president clinton after, of course, the republican-controlled house and congress in general sent a balanced budget three times in a row. he vetoed it twice and then finally signed it the third time. how did they do it and we can't do it today? 30% of the budget was made up of mandatory spending. that's entitlement spending which would be medicare, medicaid, social security, and other forms of mandatory spending such as welfare, section 8 and so forth. so that meant that 70% was discretionary spng which meant you could cut budgets out of
certain departments and agencies and begin to balance the budget again. today it's 60% of the budget that's mandatory and entitlement spending and growing which means we have little -- certainly much less to work with in order to balance a budget and it continues to grow. and the largest piece of that is medicare itself. mr. speaker, i guarantee you that most americans do not realize that today medicare is very much a subsidized and entitlement program. even though its recipients and those of us in the work force paying into it, even though we pay premiums into it, the return on those premiums are three-fold. that is to say for every dollar you put into medicare you get $3 in benefits and that applies no matter what your income. waren buffett is old enough -- warren buffett is old enough to be on medicare. he gets the same subsidies as the little lady who barely gets by each month. so it's important for us to understand that we already have
a government-run health care system, that's medicare, that the actuaries, c.b.o. says becomes insolvent, runs out of money in four to eight years. it depends on which estimate to believe in. with each year that estimate comes closer and closer rather than farther and farther away. so i hate to say it but promise number one was broken. the president promised that there would be nothing to change about your health care plan or your doctor. we know that not to be true. number two, broken promise two is it will not add one dime to the deficit. and we know now that it's going to be at least $500 billion. perhaps as much as $1.5 trillion over the coming decade. so let's move to broken promise number three. president barack obama said in september, 2009, "and one more misunderstanding i want to
clear up. under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place." well, is that true? you know, there was a whole lot of drama around here during the debate. the original obamacare bill -- and by the way, i want to point out something about the term obamacare. i'm often asked in my town halls, why do you call it obamacare? isn't that being derogatory or in some way denigrating to the bill itself or to the president ? and the rhetorical question i have, if it's a law you can be proud of, then why are you ashamed to name it after president obama? if it was a bill i was proud of, a law i was proud of, i would love it if it was called flemingcare. but quite honestly, i don't
think even the president is proud of this. and how do i know that? because on the two-year anniversary, where are the cakes and the candles? where is the celebration? rather that speaker pelosi when she was speaker right here in this chamber said that we have to pass it to know what's in it. well, mr. speaker, we now know what's in it and we're not happy about it. 57% of the american people say we want it repealed. and only 38% -- and these are consistent numbers -- since the passage of the law and in fact it's gotten a little worse over time, the vast majority of americans do want it repealed. but back to this. what about funding of abortions? when the bill first passed this house, we had protections and guarantees. we had a few pro-life members from the democrat side. we had vast number of pro-life members on the republican side. and we came together and said,
ok, we're not going to vote -- they're not going to vote for this bill. no republican voted for it. but the democrats who were pro-life said we are not going to support this bill unless it has protections, not to prevent abortions, but to prevent taxpayer funding of abortions. today, we're in a divided nation when it comes to the question of abortions. about half of americans, 51% are pro-life. they do not believe that we should take innocent life. something near that say, well, we think it's a woman's rise to choose. but by and large around 75% americans say we do not want to pay for through our taxpayer money, we do not want to pay for abortions. and so we were given certain guarantees that that wouldn't happen. however, when the bill came back to us from the senate, all the protections, conscience clause protections, protections against taxpayer funding of abortions, all of that was
stripped away. now, the president would say even today, and many democrats would say, there's not any taxpayer funding of abortions. well, again, is that true? just recently the department of health and human services under secretary sebelius issued a final rule on the state health care exchanges providing for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion, the rule confirms that abortions on demand will be included in publicly funded insurance plans. this means that it is absolutely required that insurance companies provide abortion services. now, you know, even among the pro-choice americans, they would suggest to you and admit to you that while they think a woman should have the right to choose, they also would agree we need to reduce the number of abortions whenever possible. but while making abortions more
and more convenient and more and more available and cheaper and cheaper, that's not going to be the case. even though abortions have been coming down year after year because young ladies have been deciding for life instead of against life, we are going to be seeing those numbers go back up again because of the wholesale subsidy of the industry. and what do i mean by that? to comply with the accounting requirement of obamacare, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge for each premium payer. the enrollee will make two payments. $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services. that is described in the rule. the surcharge can only be disclosed at the time of the enrollment. further, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly -- to pay and
directly subsidize abortions. that's kind of technical jargon. what does it mean? it basically means that in the most technical sense the premium dollars will not be used to fund abortions. what will happen is that you as americans will be charged an extra fee, a surcharge, if you will. it will be booked separately, but it still flows directly to abortion services. you'll be required to do that. under obamacare, all insurance plans must cover at no charge to the patient, that is, charge to the taxpayer but not to the patient, abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, sterilization and patient education and counseling for women of reproductive age. religious employers such as catholic hospitals, christian schools and faith-based pregnancy care centers will have to provide and pay for such coverage for their employees regardless of their religious beliefs. mr. speaker, that's a direct
violation of the first amendment to the constitution. the first amendment to the constitution provides that government shall establish no religion and that you should have the freedom to practice religion in any way you see fit. we've seen this played out over the many years of this country. for instance, the amish are against war. it's against their conscious to fight in a war. and if indeed an amish person is asked to join the military, to pick up a rifle and go fight, if he declares it's against his religious conscious, then he's not forced to fight. and that is a well-respected, well-observed from a digs, and it's certainly right down to the beginning of the core of the constitution. but for some reason we're suspending that constitutional right. that is to say that a hospital
owner, an insurance company owner, a physician even or nurse who may choose not to provide abortion-inducing pills, certainly provide abortions themselves or perhaps for whatever fundamental religious reasons such as in catholicism not practice sterilization or take birth control pills, they are not going to provide those. now, the question comes from democrats on this, that means those services will be cut off from americans. well, today these institutions are not required to produce that. does anybody have a problem finding these services and in an affordable way? every state has a program. it's funded both state and federally to get free services with regard to on steck rickal and -- obstetrical care and gynecological services. there is no reason we have to
have health care providers to get something against their religious or moral convictions. now we recently had a mandate, a rule provided by the president that said, look, doesn't matter, you know, who you are, where you are or what kind of religion you practice, you're going to have to provide the abortion or abortion-related services that we dictate to you. and then as a result, the pushback of the catholic church, they said, well, we'll make an accommodation. well, mr. speaker, that accommodation never occurred. that was only a statement made by the president. the actual rule that was propagated is still the rule today and it's now been finalized. nothing has changed. it was put on the entire discussion of the rule. let's move on to broken promise number four.
president obama, september, 2009, in an address to a joint session of congress, and i was here, says, i will protect medicare. now, did he protect medicare? well, the first thing that obamacare does is it cuts $500 billion, a half a trillion dollars, from medicare itself. i repeat, obamacare, the first thing it does to finance the services that it provides, it cuts $500 billion from medicare. part of that is taken out of the so-called medicare advantage program which is a private part of medicare where private plans like humana gold are provided funds. but half or more of that is simply taken out of direct services such as home health,
hospice services, many other kinds of services. and so i don't see how you can remove $500 billion from medicare and begin to say that you're going to protect it. and a -- and in fact we republicans have been criticized in the last year that for some reason we want to end medicare. and nothing could be further from the truth. republicans want to save medicare but because medicare, you heard me say medicare will become insolvent in four to eight years, the experts tell us, don't take my word for it, go to the experts, the actuaries and the c.b.o.. they tell us that the system runs out of money, the checks start bouncing in four to eight years. and so what have our democrat colleagues done to save medicare? whenever you ask them, all you hear is crickets. what are the republicans' answer to that? we submitted in 2011 a budget that would not only protect
medicare but sustain it indefinitely by the use of premium support, means testing and many other things and opening up medicare to market forces so it would drive costs down and increase services. so whether you like the republican solution or not, we do have a solution. our democrat friends offer no solution. so their plan is no plan. their plan is sticking your head in the sand and therefore their plan is the one that would end medicare. on to broken promise number five. senator barack obama, candidate obama, said, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000
a year will see any form of tax increase. well, is that true? well, let me go down the list and you decide for yourself, mr. speaker. $52 billion in fines on employers who do not provide a government-approved coverage, $32 billion in taxes on health insurance plans. not a penalty, just simply straightforward, an excise tax which adds up to $32 billion. and, mr. speaker, if you think that your tax rates are going to go -- excuse me, your premiums are going to go down when the taxes on those companies go up, then we need to sit down and talk about it. $5 billion in taxes from limits on over-the-counter medication. $15 billion in taxes from limiting the deduction on itemized medical expenses. and that's to everybody, not just people who make over $200,000, $250,000 a year.
$13 billion in taxes from new limits on flexible spending accounts. $60 million in taxes on health insurance plans. $27 billion in taxes on pharmaceutical companies. $20 billion in taxes on medical device companies. we already hear of medical device companies either going out of business or moving their business overseas. $3 billion in taxes on tanning services, $3 billion in taxes on self-insured health plans and $1 billion in new penalties on health savings account distributions. remember that one of the most useful tools in limiting cost that's been well received by beneficiaries of private insurance has been health savings accounts which allows you to keep your own money and spend your own money and save the first dollar expenses to insurance companies which ultimately lowers your premiums. i know that because we
instituted that about seven years ago in our companies and instead of having 15% increase year over year in our premiums, they flattened out and have never been above 3% parayear. -- per year. and that means more money we can pay our employees and more benefits that they can enjoy. but here's a couple of really important ones i think everyone needs to understand, mr. speaker. in 2013 the payroll tax will increase .9% going to med a care for those making $200,000 to $250,000 a year. that is to say, single filer, $200,000, couple, $250,000. now, mr. speaker, most people hearing this might say, well, that doesn't apply to me because i don't make $200,000 a year. but this is not indexed. which means that in a few years through inflation, mr. speaker, everybody will be included in this virtually. certainly the middle class would be. already today we have a similar problem called a.m.t.,
alternative minimum tax. it was designed years ago to hit the wealthy, the high income earners and who is it hitting today? it's hidding -- hitting the middle class because it hasn't been indexed. but that isn't the worst of it when it comes to taxes. there's a 3.8% tax on the sale of your assets, again, for people who make $200,000, single, $250,000 for a couple. again, the question is, what do i care? i sell my house, i make some money on it, but i won't make $200,000 a year. i sell my stocks, maybe i sell a business, i sell some other sort of asset. should i worry about that? well, maybe today you don't. the average american doesn't make $200,000, $250,000 a year. but in a few years through inflation and the way we're printing money these days, that should be very soon, average americans will easily be making $200,000, $250,000 and as a result they will be encaptured
in that. the middle class will be hurt the most by this tax. the law also forces people to buy insurance, then the federal government taxes employer-provided plans at a 40% rate. this tax will hit middle income families especially hard. so you see, mr. speaker, we have a bevy of taxes. at least 10 or more that i've listed here. the vast majority of them hit the middle class and even lower than that. there's no way that this promise was ever kept and in my opinion it was ever intended to be kept. broken promise number six. senator barack obama, february, 2008, again, candidate obama, said in columbus, ohio, if you've got health insurance we're going to work with you to lower your premiums by $2,500 for family per year.
and i think this is perhaps the cruelest promise of all. what has actually happened? the annual kaiser family foundation survey of employer-provided insurance found that average family premiums totaled $12,860 in 2008, $13,375 in 2009, $13,770 in 2010 and $15,073 in 2011. premiums have already risen by $2,213 since president obama took office and much of that increase was as a direct result from obamacare. why? because the mandates create more costs. oftentimes, mr. speaker, folks will say to me, well, look, if you republicans want to repeal obamacare, will you keep coverage for pre-existing illness? will you keep coverage for folks who are up to 26 years old and living in their household? and my answer is this, we
certainly can and in fact we could have been doing that all along. but if, mr. speaker, we add more mandates, we take caps off, all that does is raise the premium. the marketplace has to deal with that one way or another. so you have to decide sfor yourselves, as consumers. do you want more benefits, less capps, or do you want less benefits, more caps? you're going to have to pay for it either way. i would say, mr. speaker, yes we would love to keep those but what we'd rather do more than that is to make it a choice for the american citizens. they can choose which ever one they want. if you want a plan that, for instance, has no lifetime caps, fine, but you are going to have to pay an incrementally more in your premiums in order to receive that benefit. the c.b.o. projects that the law's new benefit mandates will raise premiums in the individual market by $2,100 per family. the increase is because people
will be forced to buy richer coverage which will force them to consume more health care. you see, mr. speaker, the president, when he was a candidate, promised that the cost of premiums would go down by $2,500 per year per family. it is already gone up that much. so that's a spread of about $5,000 per year and it's expected to go up even another $2,100 as obamacare fully kicks in. mr. speaker, these are the main six points that i wanted to bring out today. but i'm going to touch -- oh, ok. in closing i would just like to say that we'll be posting, mr. speaker, on our website, these promises and the others that have been broken and i pledge with many of my colleagues here in the house that we will hopefully at the beginning of next year fully repeal obamacare and replace it with something
that's common sense, that's market driven, that re-establishing the doctor-patient relationship and puts the choice back into the hands of the american citizen. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 5, 2011, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, for 30 minutes. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. a couple of issues i want to address. i appreciate so much my friend, dr. fleming, that has the adjoining district to mine, across the river over in louisiana. he makes great points. we need to get the federal government out of the business of controlling people's health care. we need to get them back in the business of being a referee,
making sure insurance companies and health care providers do the right thing, but out of the business of dictating and controlling health care. obamacare, the ipab, we got a board of 15 people, going to dictate people's medical decisions for them and of course all of the pandering back during the debate on obamacare, how you can, as my friend dr. fleming pointed out, the president, all those who mirror his comments, all those that read from the same teleprompter said, oh, no, you like your health care, you can keep it. you like your doctor, you can keep it. well, we knew they were wrong. they were wrong. so, most people have already
lost their health care exactly as they had it before, if they liked it. and if they haven't yet, they will. that's why it was a good idea not only to repeal a provision on that board that will dictate's peoples' lives, what health care they can have, what they can't have, that was a good idea. we need to repeal the whole bill. it is unconstitutional and of course the president did us a wonderful favor by showing what many of us knew, that if obamacare is considered constitutional, it's not, but if the courts considered it that way, then it is very clear the president believes and i think under the bill he has the authority to step on, suppress, override people's individual liberties and freedoms.
we were assured by our founders that we were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among those life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. well, obamacare modifies that to the extent that you can have life, liberty and pursuit of happiness only if it meets with the approval of the administration in power and the people they've put on ipab and what they have to say about whether you're too old to have a treatment, whether -- like the president said, one of his town halls to a lady that said, will you at least consider the quality of life on people like my mother? and whether she can get a pacemaker since she'd live for 10 years with the pacemaker and he said ultimately, you know, maybe we're off better telling your mother, take a pain pill. the part that he didn't say was take the pain pill and die, don't live 10 years because that's what obamacare will do
for us. so hopefully the supreme court justices that will take this up and consider it will also realize that since obamacare gives the president the power to override the constitution and prohibit the free exercise of religion, i'm baptist but obviously it does clearly restrict the free exercise of individual catholics, of catholic institutions, and that's because the president says so, because obamacare gives him the power to do that. and i hope the supreme court justices will take note of that. they can take judicial notice of what has been publicly done by order and take note of the fact that since our freedom of religion is clearly expressed in the first part of the first amendment and it's there in black and white, the
government's not to prohibit the free exercise of religion and since the privacy rights, as the supreme court has come to call them, is not written in the constitution. they were somehow found in the shadow of a prenumberous somewhere that, tree, if obamacare gives the president the power to override people's constitutional rights for rights that are put in, stated words in the constitution, then it's certainly going to give some red neck president down the road the right to just say, you know what, the private rights are not even there. so we're setting those aside, too, just like i set aside catholics and other religious beliefs. now we have the power to set aside a right that's not even mentioned in the constitution. and it ought to scare every
thinking liberal -- we won't get the ones that don't think -- but every thinking liberal ought to have that go to their core and give them goose bumps. oh, my goodness. i didn't think about some red neck person possibly getting -- becoming president. because at some point the american people are going to get so fed up with having washington dictate all of their individual decisions that they may just elect the biggest red neck they can get. and because the supreme court, if they were to do the unthinkable and rule obamacare as constitutional, then the administration will have not only a right, they will have a duty to dictate to people how they can live because if the federal government has the right under the constitution to control all our health care,
putting some providers out of business, picking winners and losers, telling who gets the pain pill, who fwets a pacemaker, if -- who gets a pacemaker, if they have the right to do that the goff has the duty to -- the government has the duty to tell every person how to live. and the federal government could look at every debit purchase, every credit card purchase -- i got in this discussion with some government attorneys back before i ever got to congress and they were saying, look, if banks have the right to review all of your banking records, why shouldn't the government? i explained because the government can put us in jail and a bank can't. that's why there are protections against the government. but obamacare will give the government control of our health care and therefore at some point it will only make
sense that they live up to their duty and say, you know what, of course under obamacare the federal government will have every person's health care records. it becomes the repository for everyone's most private information about their lives. there's nothing of mine i'm worried about, but it is quite bothersome to think there is nothing that can be private from the federal government once they have all of everybody's health care records. well, if they got everybody's health care records, wouldn't it make sense at some point down the road to say, you know what, you're costing us too much money. you're not living properly. and we noted in your health care records you have a 280 cholesterol level, and then we noticed you went to the grocery store and bought a pound of bacon this weekend so we are
going to have to change your health care, change the charges. folks, that's a reasonable conclusion of where obamacare has to take us if it's ruled constitutional. it's got to stop. one other thing i wanted to mention, mr. speaker, it's been reported today in a couple places. my friend, brietbart's online news -- a.w.r. hawkins. another is from "the washington post." two different ends of the spectrum, perhaps. both reporting the same thing. this administration, through secretary hillary clinton, is going to announce that it could care less what congress has ordered about helping the enemies of israel, about
helping those who are terrorizing and persecuting christians in egypt and destroying churches and eliminating freedom of religion and are saving they want to rethink their peace accord with israel and setting themselves up to be the enemy of israel and now this administration, knowing that congress passed a law that says you can't give people money in egypt unless you can certify to certain facts. and they cannot. not honestly. if they do so now with what we know publicly, we know they will not be honest in doing so, and they're going to get $1.5 billion. not in humanitarian aid, according to this story. not food. military aid. so forget all of those speeches
that this president gave that aipac and, oh, gosh, we're israel's best friend. we're going to help them because, oh, no, we're going to give people who have the power to destroy israel on the border with israel military aid as they are planning -- many there make it clear they hate israel, they hate us. and i say over and over, you don't have to pay people to hate us. we'll do it for free. we have to quit funding the enemy of us and the enemy of our friends. this is insane. and i hope somewhere in this administration is a cooler head that will say, mr. president, madam secretary, israel is -- remember the speeches you have both given about how a friend
they are, and it's time that we do not provide military aid, abetting and assistance to people that want to destroy christians, that want to destroy israelis and that want to put the world in turmoil and have everyone living exactly as they dictate. we want to keep some freedoms here and in israel, and the way to do that is not to fund and provide military assistance to anyone unless we know they are our friend, they're israel's friend, they're the friends of our friends. to do so will bring calamity onto this country like they will not realize until it's too late. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: i do that we now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the motion is adopted. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday a budget resolution for 2013. the proposal approved wednesday include provisions to set a lower discretionary cash for all government spending compared to what was agreed to.
the measure also overhauls major entitlement programs and proposes a flatter tax code. live coverage of the house here on c-span. also, the same. -- the supreme court will hear oral argument next week and will provide same-day audio monday through wednesday. you can hear the oral arguments each day at about 2:00 p.m. eastern. coverage on c-span3, c-span radio, and on c-span.org. this weekend on the presidency -- >> think of the fdr memorial. there were three plus designs before they got to a final plan. i think we should not be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the centuries and we want to get it right.
>> a house subcommittee discussed the planned memorial. watch sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific this weekend on c-span3. >> the genetic scientist that nailed down a rough date of when the hiv epidemic started described wet moss. in some places, there is a ton and it is incredibly destructive. what are the factors that keep this virus moving? what can we do to end it? >> and author tracks the history of aids sunday night at 9:00 as part of the "book tv" weekend on
c-span2. >> c-span began televising the u.s. house of representatives to households nationwide in 1979. today, our coverage is available on tv, radio, and online. >> i viewed every one of those youngsters as someone who i had a personal responsibility for. we knew they were going into a dangerous conflict. we wanted to give them every benefit that would allow them to come home safely. i am more distressed than any member of this committee could ever be that there are veterans suffering illnesses as a result of their service in the gulf. i think we have to keep that until we find out otherwise. we have to get to the bottom of
this. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public- service. >> president obama today travel to oklahoma where he highlighted his energy policies. he announced that he will expedite the permit process for the southern half of the keystone pipeline. he made that announcement at the storage starting point. his remarks are about 20 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] [cheers and
>> hello, oklahoma. it is good to be here. have a seat. wonderful to see you. it is good to be back in oklahoma. everybody looks like they are doing just fine. thank you so much for your hospitality. it is wonderful to be here. yesterday, i visited nevada and new mexico to talk about what we are calling and "all of the above" energy strategy. it is a strategy that will keep us on that -- on track to further reduce our dependence on oil, put more people back to work, and ultimately, help to curb this spike in gas prices that we are seeing year after year after year. , any, i've come to cushing oil town -- [applause] -- because producing more oil
and gas here at home has been and will continue to be a critical part of the "all of the above" energy strategy. under my administration, america is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. [cheers] that is important to know. over the last three years, my administration has opened up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. we are opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources offshore. we have quadrupled the number of our operating rates to a record high. if we have added the enough new oil and gas pipelines to encircle the earth and then some. we are drilling all over the place right now. that is not the challenge.
that is not a problem. the problem in a place like cushing is that we are actually producing so much oil and gas in places like north dakota and colorado that we do not have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it to where it needs to go, both to refineries and then eventually across the country and around the world. there is a bottleneck right here because we cannot get enough of the oil to our refineries fast enough. and if we could, we would be able to increase our oil supplies at a time when they are needed as much as possible. right now, a company called the trans canada, has applied to build a new pipeline to speed more oil to cushing -- from cushing to oil refineries in the coast. today, have instructed my administration to cut through the red tape, the bureaucratic hurdles to make this project a
priority and get it done. [applause] you would not know all of this from listening to the television set. this whole issue of the keystone pipeline has generated a lot of controversy and a lot of politics. and that is because the regional route from canada into the united states was planned through an area in nebraska that supplies some drinking water for nearly 2 million americans, and irrigation for a good portion of america's crop land. and nebraska, of all political sites, including the governor there, raised concerns about the safety of the route through there. to be extra careful of -- that the construction of the pipeline to an area like that would not be putting the help of the american public at risk, our experts wanted more time to review the project. unfortunately, congress decided
they wanted their own time line. not the company, not the experts, but members of congress who decided this might be a fun political issue decided to lead and make it impossible for us to make an informed decision. what we have said to the company is, we are happy to review for -- future permits. and today, we are making this new pipeline from cushing to the gulf a new priority. the southern leg of it, we will make it a priority and get it done. the northern portion of it, we will have to review properly to make sure the health and safety of the american people are protected. that is common sense. but the fact is, out -- my administration has approved dozens of new oil and gas pipelines in the last three years, including ones from canada. and as long as i am president, we will continue to encourage oil interest -- and
infrastructure and do it in a way that protects the health and safety of the american people. but we do not have to choose one or the other. we can do both. [applause] if you guys are talking to your friends, neighbors, co-workers, relatives, and wondering -- and they are wondering what is going on in oil production, you tell them anyone who suggests that somehow we are suppressing domestic oil production is not paying attention. [applause] they are not paying attention. you also need to tell them that anyone who says they are -- who says that just drilling, more oil or gas, by itself will bring down gas prices tomorrow or the next day, or even next year, they are also not paying attention. they are not playing it straight. because we are drilling more and producing more. but the fact is, producing more oil at home is not enough by
itself to bring gas prices down. the reason is, we have an oil market that is worldwide. i have been saying for last few weeks i want everyone to understand this. we use 20% of the world oil. we only produce 2% of the world's oil. if we opened up an oil rig on the south lawn, if we have one right now on the washington monument, even if we drill every little bit of this great country of ours, we would still have to buy the rest of our needs from someplace else if we keep on using the same amount of oil. the price of oil will still be set by the global market. that means every time there is tension that rises in the middle east, which is what is happening right now, so will the price of gas. the main reason the gas prices are higher is because people are
worried about what is happening with iran. it does not have to do with domestic oil production. in has to do with the oil markets looking and saying, you know, if something happens there could be trouble. so we are going to price a little higher just in case. that is not the future we want. we do not want to be vulnerable to something happening on the other side of the world that is somehow affecting our economy, or hurting a lot of folks who have to drive to get to work. that is not the future i want for america or for our kids. i want us to control our own energy destiny. i want to determine our own course. yes, we're going to keep emphasizing greed -- production. we're also going to be looking
at how we can have renewable energy sources and we have to become more efficient. that means producing more biofuels, which can be good for the economy and the environment. it means more fuel-efficient cars -- fuel-efficient cars. it means more wind power. we want every source of american made energy. i do not want the energy jobs of tomorrow going to other countries. i want them here in the united states of america. that is what can "all above -- all of the above" energy strategy is all about. yesterday, i went to nevada to the largest solar plant of anywhere in the country.
hundreds of workers built it. is powering thousands of homes, and they are expanding to tens of thousands more as they put more capacity on line. after 30 years of not doing anything, we finally increased fuel efficiency standards on cars and trucks. and americans are now designing and building cars that will go twice as far on the same gallon of gas as they did in the past decade. that will save the average family thousand dollars over the life of a car. and it will save companies a lot of money because they are hurt by rising fuel costs as well. all of these steps have helped put america on the path to greater energy independence. since i took off, our dependence on foreign oil has gone down every year. last year, we imported 1 million fewer barrels per day than the year before. think about that.
in america, at a time that we are growing, we are importing less oil from overseas because we are using it smarter and more efficiently. america is now importing less than half the oil we used for the first part of the decade. the key is to keep it going. oklahoma, we got to make sure that we do not go backward, but we keep going forward if we're going to end our dependence on foreign oil. if we're going to bring gas prices down once and for all as opposed to just playing politics with it, then we have to develop every source of energy that we have, every new technology that could help us become more efficient. we've got to use our innovation, our brainpower, our creativity. we've got to have a vision for the future, not just constantly looking back at the past. that is where we need to go. that is what america can do.
america has always been about building the future. we are always at the cutting edge, ahead of the curve. whether it is thomas edison or the wright brothers or steve jobs, we're always thinking about what the next thing is. and that is how we have to think about energy. and if we do, not only will we seek jobs and growth and success here in cushing, okla., but across the country. god bless you guys and god bless the united states of america. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪
[cheers and applause] >> starred in short lead live on c-span3, the director for the centers for disease control and prevention will have the current status of the hiv/aids pandemic and our u.s. contributions to global efforts work together with the u.s. domestic response. that is live in about 15 minutes at 4:30 p.m. eastern time on our
companion network c-span3. next week, the supreme court will hear oral arguments about health care law. it will provide same-day audio monday through wednesday. you can hear the world argument monday afternoon each day when it is released at about 1:00 eastern. that will be on c-span3 and also let c-span radio and c- span.org. >> this weekend on the presidency on american history tv. >> the fdr or moral was not just redesigned, but 3 different designs before they got to the final plan. i think we should not be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the centuries. but we want to get it right. >> for the eisenhower memorial designed by the great -- by
frank gary opposed by the family. watch sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi and other democratic leaders spoke earlier about affordable care act on the second anniversary of the passage of president obama's healthcare lot. also, here personal stories of those directly affected by the legislation. this is about 40 minutes.
>> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for being with us today. as you know, two years ago, the u.s. congress made history. after 100 years of trying, is finally passed -- we finally pass health care for all americans. it is a right for all, not just a privilege for the few. we have honored our founders through healthier life and liberty to pursue our own happiness. today, we have people with us who are already benefiting, or will benefit from the health care bill. i am pleased to be here with my colleagues, and democratic whip steny hoyer, jim cogburn. -- and jim clybourn. we will present our give to you.
that is what it is all about. i would like to thank our friends bob mixa, brian eamon, kalisha williams, elizabeth arden steam, and carmen corrales for being with us. imagine -- and this is not hard to do, being a parent of a child with a pre-existing medical condition, like asthma or diabetes, driving the medical bills through the roof and choosing between paying the mortgage or the next doctor's appointment now are imagine -- and now imagine a college career were you cannot accept your dream job because they do not offer health insurance.
there are rising costs each year for preventive care and prescription drugs. women are charged higher premiums than men for the same coverage. or a worker lost in a dead-end job, unable to pursue your pet -- your professional passion for fear of losing your insurance. for too long, these are not just in someone's imagination, but reality millions of americans. that has all changed for the better with the passage of the affordable care act. we made history passing the bill. we made progress for the american people. imagine, republicans want to turn back the clock and take away this progress from the american people. and they will be voting next week to do so. over and over again, they keep bringing up one way or another
to unravel it. in their budget, they will be voting to end the medicare guarantee, making seniors pay more for their benefits. already, the american people are seeing a benefit. 86 million americans have been able to keep their health care benefits. before the first time in american history, millions of american women have access to free preventive health care. today, no child in america is denied health coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions. and more than 5 million seniors have saved over $3.2 billion in prescription drug benefit. 86 million americans have already benefited from this, and the full bill has yet to go into effect. and now to introduce you to my colleague, a leader on this issue and in the fight for affordable health care to increase access and lower cost
for health care for all americans and for our country, our distinguished whip, mr. hoyer of maryland. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you very much. you know, we have our caucus and it with meetings in this room. -- our caucus meetings and our with meetings in this room. what a wonderful crowd we have here of working americans, senior americans, very young americans. [laughter] his name is lucas. a very proud grandfather standing here. let me tell you, i happen to be a great grandfather. >> that is not an adjective. [laughter] he is that, too. [laughter] but it is the generational in addition to his excellence. he is also great. >> [laughter]
as i was saying. since it was signed into law two health reform has meant a possible for 32 million seniors to have access to free preventive services. it bears repeating. people need to understand the consequences of what this bill is doing for america and americans. it has reduced the cost of prescription drugs under and willpart thd eliminate the double by the end of this decade. the cost of the provisions in the affordable care act are already slowing the growth of medicare spending with many beneficiaries' premiums and deductibles already going down. or growing at the lowest rate in years. republicans, on the other hand, want to end medicare, that
guarantee, and turn it into a voucher program that would ask seniors to pay more than $6,000 a year out of pocket. americans who are aged 54 would have to save an additional -- listen to this -- an additional $182,000 just to cover their health-care costs in retirement. the doughnut hole would reopen, swallowing an additional $44 billion in extra drug costs for seniors in 2020. these are the kinds of figures that we are talking about. some of you, like me, in this room are seniors, and you understand the consequences of that increase. you are now going to hear from an american who was falling into the doughnut hole every year. i want to thank you for being here. but thanks to the affordable care act, his medicare
prescription drug costs are much lower. and as i said, the doughnut hole is closing. i want to welcome bob meeks here, and we want to hear from someone who has real experience, real knowledge, and real conviction. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is bob meeks and i am 75 years old. as one of my grand signs pointed out, papaw, that is three- quarters of ascensioa century. [laughter] he did not have to point that out. i'm here on behalf of every american and every senior who has faced this coverage. i was for a truck driver. two years ago this week, people
like rep pelosi and hoyer and president obama had the courage to stand up and enact the affordable care act, which is helping millions of seniors like me better afford to see a doctor and fill a prescription. i have been in the medicare doughnut hole ever since it began in 2006. when you are in the doughnut hole, you must continue to pay your full monthly premiums to the insurance company, but you receive no prescription drug benefits. to me, being in the doughnut hole is like going to a restaurant and paying full price for a meal and the waiter brings to a plate, and deep. -- brings you an empty plate. [laughter] i am not in the best of health. i must take seven medications daily, and most are brand names. it is for c o p e, severe
arthritis, and high blood pressure. before the affordable care act, i would fall in the doughnut hole every year around may. my prescription would cost me $1,200 a month and i had to pay it all. thanks to the affordable care act, i received a $250 check in 2010. that helped. and in 2011, my monthly drug costs of 1200 a month went to between $600 to $800 while i was in the doughnut hole. this has been a huge help to me and my wife. i know many seniors are confused and skeptical about the new law. here is what i would say to my fellow seniors, and everyone here on capitol hill, the affordable care act is good. it works. it is saving seniors lots of money. do not be fooled by politicians and their friends to try to scare you. to the members of congress here today, thank you for helping me
and millions of other seniors. and please, i implore you, do not give up the fight. i am living proof that the affordable care act works. a little side know to those -- a side note to those in d.c. that oppose the aca, don't remove it, improve it. thank you. [applause] >> very good, bob. and i think, hopefully, to the folks in d.c., and i presume you mean more particularly on this hill, they take your it buys. don't remove it, improve it.
we are talking about real experience, not just debating on the floor. bob is an example of exactly what it does do, and it makes a difference. passing the affordable care act was especially important at a time when our economy has forced many families and small businesses to make difficult choices about spending. so many americans have had that happen to them. that is why one of the key parts of the affordable care act is about bringing costs down for small businesses, so they can afford insurance for themselves and for those who work with them. 360,000 small businesses have already claimed part of the $40 billion in tax credits created by the affordable care act to help them provide affordable coverage for over 2 million workers. talk about the positive effects of health reform on small
businesses. let me invite lucas's grandfather, brian eveland, up to the podium. [applause] coming up to the podium, yes. >> tell them like it is, look as. [laughter] thank you for the opportunity to come here today. this is lucas. he will be two soon. we are committed to offering health insurance to our employees, but over the past 10 years it has become a struggle. we have been accustomed to rates going up anywhere from 10% to 20% and it has been difficult to find for ways to deal with that. we have a great agent that works hard to give us a different options. but it still ends up that we have to pay the bills. then we renewed our insurance in
august, but we start thinking about this in may. standing up here, it is really nerve wracking. that is what it was like this year because we had heard the previous year that rates would go up 20%, 30%. all sorts of scary things were going to happen. my wife jennifer and i sat down with an agent in front of us and we were pretty nervous about it because we pay $70,000 a year for health insurance for employees. it is going to go up 20%, that is $30,000. that is a lot of money and where was going to come from? we sat down and it was just total disbelief. he said, it is going to go down 6%. 6% down. we made no major changes to our group. is the same insurance company. the same average age. everything was the same. and it was going down. it was unbelievable.
on top of that, i there was going to be a new package in our insurance that out of our employes to get preventive care with no copiague. that was a real boon -- with conoco pay -- with no copay. that was a real boon. we wondered why. our agent explained that 80% of my premiums are actually going to go to medical care. it is amazing, but that is what it is about. our rates went down. we are provided as a business to providing a good value to the customer. it seems only fair that the insurance company should provide us with good value. we are so glad something has been done about health care. i want to thank nancy pelosi
very much. i really appreciate you doing this. i know has not been easy. the health care is working for my business. it works in our community because of the local health improvement part. it is working for individuals. it is right for america and for future generations. it passes this technicians inspect and test -- this technician's inspection test, and it passes with flying colors. thank you very much. [applause] >> i am jim clybourn. are represent the sixth congressional district. buttu often in this town, the conversation gets -- to often in this town, the conversation gets bogged down to policies and
political calculations. u.f. heard the terms open -- you have heard the terms "been in the cost curve," "who wins and who loses." all of those missed the point of this landmark legislation. it is not about this now. it is about real people and their families, and their health care. it is about saving lives, saving money, and saving medicare. i am pleased to be here today with the two people -- two real people with very powerful stories. the first one i'm going to introduce i can really identify with, as the grand father of mie whore me -- of up pre nee
came nine days early and waited 3 pounds. he had several operations. she is from raleigh, north carolina, and she is going to tell you about her son, ethan. [applause] >> good afternoon. i want to especially thank nancy pelosi for letting me come out and share my story. in 2006, my husband and i were very excited parents to be. he was a lawsuit and i was a manager for a major department
store. -- a law student and i was a manager for a major department store. we had just bought a home as newlyweds. i was going to continue working while my husband continued law school, but all of our plans changed when our son was born. he was born with a vascular tumors that require chemotherapy. at 6 weeks old, he was poor oral steroids and tylenol with codeine. because he was so small, doctors had to do surgery to fix -- to put in an external port to chemotherapy.er the he had three surgeries and multiple rounds of chemotherapy before he was one. he needed a round-the-clock care and i had no other choice than to quit my job to provide that care. and when i quit my job, we lost our health insurance. we were incredibly fortunate
that even qualify for medicaid. without it, he most losses -- most likely would have lost his leg and possibly his life. not having health insurance proved to be quite expensive. we have no income, and now we had to care for a sick child while balancing a mortgage, monthly bills, and expensive insurance premiums because of my own health issues. thankfully, eat-in began to heal when he turned one. heethan began to heal womewhen turned one. my husband and i manage to hold our heads above water for two and a half years. we lived frugally and took out student loans, but in the end, we still have to sell our home and move in with family. ethan's third year with fantastic. he graduated from all of his therapies and start preschool. he was not just walking out, but running, jumping, and popping,
with no pain whatsoever. and in the fourth year, the affordable care act was signed into law. even though ethan had overcome his illness and proven more than most people will ever have to that he is strong and will fight to be healthy, without the affordable care act, he would face a lifetime of struggling to get health insurance because of his medical history. the affordable care act prohibits insurers from eliminating ordaz limiting or denying benefits because of pre- existing conditions with children. in october, 2010, the on colleges gave him a clean bill of health for the first time in his life. -- the oncologist gave him a clean bill of health for the first time in his life. we have been able to officially close that chapter in our lives.
our struggle may be over, but there are millions of families still dealing with medical problems and who still need help. those families are finally feeling some relief as a result of the affordable care act. we worked so hard to get the law passed, and why we will keep -- and we will keep fighting to keep it from getting repealed or reversed. we are not going back to the days when health insurance could deny coverage to our children because of a pre-existing condition, or drop us when we get sick. at we will keep fighting to make quality, affordable health care a reality, to ensure we are not just a country to -- who pays lip service to family values, values familiesamilie and understands the straw that we face. thank you.
[applause] >> thank you very much, felicia. in the middle of the health-care debate, i found myself doing a radio talk show that allowed collins. -- call-ins. a denman called in and began to talk about the health care reform. -- a gentleman called in and began to talk about the health care reform. he said that he had his insurance, like his insurance, and did not want anyone fooling with it. a few moments later, a lady called in and she said, congressman, i do not have a question, but what like to say something to that gentleman who called in a few minutes ago. maybe he likes what he has because he has never tried to use it. [laughter] he said, i like what i -- she
said, i liked what i had until i tried to use it. and she told the story of contracting breast cancer at 48 years old after being on her insurance since the age of 23. and at the second visit to the doctor, she got a notice from the insurance company that she was being dropped. i'm going to introduce her now. elizabeth gartenstein-ross -- elisabeth barton stein. she will tell your story. her health, her family's health, it is too important to leave to the insurance company. [applause] >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is elizabeth. i want to thank nancy pelosi and
congressman clybourn for the opportunity to tell my story today. i know how importing it is to have the opportunity to join my health insurance -- my parents' health insurance plan. in october, 2009, had just moved back to my hometown, richmond, va., to have a job with a small nonprofit. i did not qualify for my company's health insurance yet and i did not qualify for my parents' plan because i was too old. my parents wanted to help, but there was little they could do. my mom works at a church and my dad had lost his job during the recession. then i had a horrible accident at my apartment involving my gas stove where i received second and third degree burns on my chest, arm, and hands. with the help of a neighbor, i was able to walk next door. luckily, there was a hospital within walking distance. she took me to a hospital and after being admitted, they decided to transfer me to the
burn unit downtown because my birds were so severe. -- mike burns were so severe. i was kept overnight and my family and i were more scared about what was to come than we were about the accident that just happened because we all understood how the hospital bills can be. as scary as this was to me and my family, the pain after that was the bills. there were lots of them. by the time i was done, had tens of thousands of dollars for a one-night stay in hospital. and i was completely uninsured. not only will i remember forever that fateful morning, but i am still paying off the medical debt, and likely will be for many years to come. i have definitely made health coverage a top priority ever since, and after leaving the first nonprofit job, have paid individual coverage until i was
injured at my next job. however, the insurance i had at the new job was inadequate. in the meantime, with the new health care reform since the law was enacted, i was able to add to my mother's plan, which we did as a backup, but it turns out it was necessary. because now, i am in an interim job that does not offer health insurance. and i do not have to worry about what that means for my health. i would like to thank leader pelosi for her tremendous leadership on this issue, and i would like to thank the in the doubles for giving voice to our generation by giving quality affordable health care. i wish it had passed suder, -- sooner. i do not have to worry anymore that an unexpected answeaccident
could leave me paying medical bills for years. [applause] >> thank you very much, all of you. and now, i have the privilege for -- of introducing carmen morales. this is exciting for me because of the issue of how this bill affects women. it is something quite remarkable. up until the passage of this bill, being a woman was considered having a pre-existing medical condition, no more. in recent weeks, as we all know, the issue of women's health has taken center stage. and the affordable care act, we put women at the center, ensuring that we are in charge of our own health decisions and providing access to lifesaving,
preventive care. consider just a few benefits in the affordable care act. it banned insurance companies from dropping women when they get sick or become pregnant. it bans insurance companies from requiring women to obtain a pre authorization or referral for access to ob/gyn care. you would think this would be obvious. beginning this summer, it ensures free, comprehensive wegmans preventive care services, including contraception -- wins preventive care services, including contraception -- womens' preventive care services, including contraception. [applause] it prevents generating. being a woman is no longer a pre-existing medical condition.
i will now introduce carmen, who will share her powerful story about a personal benefit of health care reform. thank you for being with us. [applause] >> good afternoon. i would like to thank leader pelosi, steny hoyer, and congressman clybourn. i am a nurse practitioner and a certified diabetes educator in bakersfield, calif. at a public hospital. let me tell you how the affordable care act is making an impact in my community. we had a 25-year-old previously uninsured, but now cover through her mother's insurance plan, come to us because she found a suspicious lump.
25 years old is awfully young to be fighting these kinds of things, but it turns out shea fogh -- she had a strong family history of breast cancer. she was able to get the necessary tests and treatment and it turns out it was cancer is. we got her into surgery quickly. and we were able to remove the lump. and thankfully, we got it all. her access to our clinic probably saved her life. because because literally, we were able to -- because we caught it early, we were able to avoid a disfiguring surgery. nashua follow-up care to make sure the disease does not -- now she will have follow-up care to make sure the disease does not return to any other part of her body. she will be able to get any of the testing she needs for her family, her daughter's and her
children. i will continue to advocate for the affordable care act. i have seen how it works, how it saves lives. i want my patients to remain healthy and i want them to lead productive lives. right now in bakersfield, there is a team of nurses out on the floors educating patients about the affordable care act. i am asking you to please make sure this work does not end. it is so important. thank you. [applause] >> a very special guest -- i will yield to his mom. she will tell us what is happening now for a moment. >> we have people across the country who have shared their stories about how the affordable
care act has helped them in their families' lives. it also includes our story. >> it says, moms can be rattled." -- it says, "moms cannot be rattled." [laughter] [unintelligible] [applause] thank you all very much. as you hear from the stories, this is liberation. this is what our founders had in mind, ever expanding opportunities for people. if you want to be a photographer or a writer or a musician, whatever -- an artist.
if you want to be self- employed, start a business, change jobs, you know longer are prohibited from doing that because of access to health care. especially because you do not want to put your family at risk. how many people in america do you think have a pre-existing medical condition? they may have been sick when they were little. or they were -- had cancer and are now cancer free. that is a celebration, but you always carry a pre-existing condition and the discrimination with you, until now. until now. and we cannot let that be rolled back. that affects tens of millions of americans directly, and their families as well. with that, we would be pleased to take just a few questions. hopefully, on this subject.
>> [inaudible] part of which would repeal this act. what was your reaction to the gop budget, in addition to not only repealing the affordable health care? affordable health care act, but the budget as well? >> it does not have an impact on our conversation here in terms of affordable health care. right from the start of republicans have tried to make an assault on affordable health care. it is hard to understand why they would be against keeping people from getting health insurance and caring for their children. but for whatever reason they do. and bless their hearts, they act
upon it in this bill and they are trying to not let that happen. at the same time, and they're distorted priorities -- i am amped up about this today. the fact is, within the bill they break the guarantee. that means that seniors pay $6,000 more. over $6,000 more. you would have to save it bans $182,000. what is that they are thinking? i will tell you what i think they are thinking they do not believe in medicare their belief
is that medicare -- we have a situation where we put forth a budget that does not honor their own agreements in terms of what amount the budget should be. it breaks the medicare guaranteed and raises costs. it cuts jobs and is not a statement of our national values. i would yield to mr. roemer and mr. cliburn for any comments. >> i think you got it. >> one thing i'd do want to add is that there was bipartisan opposition that came out of the budget committee. it was a totally bipartisan bill in terms of passage, but there was bipartisan opposition to the bill because it has the wrong priorities. and in my opinion, it will make the debt and deficit and the
economy worse and moved in exactly the wrong direction, as well as undermining other social programs as we need it. >> we have been spent in the last few days marking the second anniversary of health care. >> yes. >> president obama has not. should he be using it to talk about health care this week? >> i think the president has been absolutely great. [applause] and every day since passage of the bill, the president has moved in a positive direction.
the secretary of hhs, many cabinet secretaries, people in the administration, they are taking the message forward in the country. the day after the bill was passed, the president called and said, last night when the health care bill was passed in the house, i was happier than i was that there was elected president of the united states. [applause] icet, i was pretty happy last night, too, mr. president. but not out here when you were elected. if he were not president of the united states, we would not be passing this historic legislation. we are very grateful to the president for his leadership. >> with the case coming before the supreme court next week, the you have anxiety about what may happen next week?
-- do you have anxiety about what may happen next week? >> i am thinking much more positively than you just posted, but i guess that is a fair question. again, if my colleagues have anything to say about the president's participation or the case next week -- we knew when we pass this bill it was not ironclad constitutional -- we knew it was ironclad constitutionally. what happens in the court is another matter, but we believe we were in pretty good shape going into the corporate is interesting, though. maybe this is more than you want to know. our republican colleagues have been opponents of judicial review. they have said when the congress acts, when the president signs the bill, that is a lot of the land, and they oppose the judicial review, meaning the courts reviewing the constitutionality of the law. they even said in mulberry vs.
madison, which established the principle at the beginning of our country, was wrongly decided. that was then. so opposed are they to opposing their friends in the insurance industry, to whom they are handmaidens, that they have even broken with the opposition to judicial review to take this important bill that mean so much to the american people to the courts. but i have faith in the courts and in the bill. we won't know next week, but i know all of america will be watching to see the proceedings. at least every american who has a child with a pre-existing condition, a family history that can be so described, and a woman who is concerned about her health or the health of her family, and the senior who is concerned about medicare and
what that guarantee means to laypersons health and economic security. anybody who cares about innovation in our country, or for a new kind of health care in the country that is not just about health care in america, but the good health and prevention. at the innovation to take it to personalize, customer -- customized care. anyone who cares about lowering costs and expanding access and improving the quality of health care. that sounds like it should include a lot of people, and these people who are aware of what is in the bill. -- at least people who are aware of what is in the bill. i hope all of you will help us make more people aware of what is in the bill, because it honors our great country. senator kennedy toward the end of his life said this is the great unfinished business of america, that all people